Spring 2006

20 Tools for Reducing Global Warming Pollutionfrom New England’s Transportation System

SHIFTING GEARS

MASSPIRG EDUCATION FUND

CLEAN WATER FUND

MASSACHUSETTS CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK

Shifting Gears 1

SHIFTING GEARS

20 Tools for Reducing Global Warming Pollutionfrom New England’s Transportation System

MASSPIRG Education Fund

Clean Water Fund

Massachusetts Climate Action Network

ONT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCHAND EDUCATION FUND

Spring 2006

Written By:

Tony Dutzik, Elizabeth Ridlington, Dave Algoso, Michael Goggin – Frontier Group

Marc Breslow – Massachusetts Climate Action Network

With Contributions from the New England Climate Coalition Steering Committee

2 Shifting Gears

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the members of the New England Climate Coalition steering committee, who helpeddesign this project. Special thanks to John Rumpler of the National Association of State PIRGs, MaggieDrummond of GrowSmart Maine, Steve Linnell of the Greater Portland Council of Governments, DwayneMarsh of PolicyLink, Michael Oman of Oman Analytics, and Marc Sinclair of Clean Energy Group fortheir comments. Thanks to Susan Rakov of Frontier Group for her editorial assistance. Finally, thanks aredue to the many people who supplied information, perspectives or graphics for this report.

MASSPIRG Education Fund, Clean Water Fund, Massachusetts Climate Action Network and the NewEngland Climate Coalition express our most sincere thanks to the Energy Foundation, the John MerckFund, the Oak Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts for their generous financial support of thisproject.

The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of MASSPIRGEducation Fund, Clean Water Fund, Massachusetts Climate Action Network and the New EnglandClimate Coalition. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.

© 2006 MASSPIRG Education Fund, Clean Water Fund and Massachusetts Climate Action Network

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their ownnarrow agendas, MASSPIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of thepublic interest. MASSPIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to preserve the environ-ment, protect consumers and promote good government in Massachusetts. We investigate problems,craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Massachusetts residents meaningful opportunities for civicparticipation. www.masspirg.org

Clean Water Fund (CWF), a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit, brings diverse communities together to workfor changes that improve our lives, promoting sensible solutions for people and the environment.www.cleanwater.org

Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN) is an association of local and statewide groups work-ing to halt global warming through government policies, public education, and individual action to cutgreenhouse gas emissions. Our local groups focus on efforts at the community level, in conjunction withcity and town governments and the Cities for Climate Protection campaign. At the state and regionallevels, MCAN supports policies that promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fuel-efficienttransportation. www.massclimateaction.org

Frontier Group is the research arm of the state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) and affiliatedenvironmental organizations. Frontier Group provides research and policy analysis designed to supportstate-based advocacy for a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. www.frontiergroup.org

For additional copies of this report, send $20 (including shipping) to:

New England Climate Coalitionc/o Center for Public Interest Research44 Winter Street, 4th floorBoston, MA 02108

Photo Credits: Left top: MBTA;Left bottom:Jon Patton, istockphoto.com

Design and Layout: Kathleen Krushas,To the Point Publications

Shifting Gears 3

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 6

TRANSPORTATION AND GLOBAL WARMING IN NEW ENGLAND .................................................. 7

Global Warming Emissions from Transportation ............................................................... 7

The Challenge Facing New England .................................................................................. 7

Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions: A Long-Term Process that Must Begin Now ......... 11

NEW ENGLAND’S TRANSPORTATION/GLOBAL WARMING TOOLBOX ......................................... 13

Reducing Per-Mile Vehicle Emissions .............................................................................. 13Clean Cars Program .................................................................................................. 13Incentives for More Fuel-Efficient Vehicles ................................................................... 14Fuel-Saving Tires ...................................................................................................... 14Reduce Emissions from Government and Transit Fleets ................................................. 15

Encouraging Transit and Other Low-Carbon Transportation Alternatives ....................... 17Rail Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 17Suburb-to-Suburb Transit .......................................................................................... 20Transit in Smaller Urban Areas .................................................................................. 23Biking and Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................. 25

Promoting “Smart Growth” ............................................................................................ 27Compact Development ................................................................................................ 27Transit-Oriented Development ................................................................................... 32Infrastructure Funding and Impact Fees ...................................................................... 34

Reducing Single-Passenger Automobile Commuting ........................................................ 35Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Programs ................................................................. 35Live Near Work/Live Near Transit Programs ............................................................... 39

Reallocating the Costs of Driving .................................................................................... 40Automobile Insurance Reform .................................................................................... 41Parking Reform ......................................................................................................... 44Other Subsidies for Driving ....................................................................................... 46

Revamping Transportation Planning and Finance ............................................................ 47Least-Cost Planning .................................................................................................. 47Considering Global Warming Emissions in Transportation Planning ............................ 50Funding Transit and Alternatives to Driving ............................................................... 50

ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION .. 53

NOTES ................................................................................................................................ 54

4 Shifting Gears

Transportation is the leading source of globalwarming pollution in New England, respon-sible for more than one-third of the region’s

emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading global warm-ing pollutant. Worse, transportation-sector emissionshave been rising for decades and are projected to con-tinue to increase if trends toward more vehicle traveland less fuel-efficient cars and trucks continue.

For the New England states to follow through on theirhistoric commitment – made in concert with the east-ern Canadian provinces in 2001 – to reduce globalwarming pollution, reducing global warming pollu-tion from transportation is job number one.

Thankfully, there are many good opportunities forthe region to reduce global warming pollution fromtransportation, while at the same time reducing oilconsumption and insulating the regional economyfrom energy price shocks.

Shifting Gears lays out 20 “bright ideas” that theregion’s leaders should consider in their efforts to builda more sustainable transportation system for the re-gion with less impact on the global climate. Many ofthese ideas are already being implemented in parts ofNew England or elsewhere.

Reducing Per-Mile Vehicle Emissions1. Adopt the clean cars program with carbon diox-

ide tailpipe limits – States adopting the full cleancars program can expect to roughly stabilize emis-sions of carbon dioxide from cars and light truckswithin the next two decades.

2. Create incentives for the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles – A program that combines feesfor gas-guzzlers with cash rebates to purchasers offuel-efficient vehicles could reduce global warm-ing pollution from light-duty vehicles in the regionby 5 to 31 percent below projected levels by 2020.

3. Require fuel-saving tires – By setting energy effi-ciency standards for tires, states could achieve aroughly 3 percent increase in vehicle fuel economyat little cost and without compromising safety.

4. Reduce emissions from government and transitfleets – Hybrid-electric buses can curb global

Executive Summary

warming emissions by 10 to 15 percent versusconventional buses.

Encouraging Transit and Transportation Alternatives5. Invest in the region’s rail infrastructure and de-

velop a long-term rail plan – Passenger trains emitabout half as much global warming pollution perpassenger-mile as car or air travel.

6. Expand suburb-to-suburb transit opportunities– By using smaller vehicles and more flexibleroutes, transit agencies in states like New Jerseyhave delivered effective service in hard-to-reachsuburbs.

7. Improve transit in small cities and towns – Part-nerships with local governments and major em-ployers have helped rural and small-city transitagencies in New England extend their reach andbolster service.

8. Expand pedestrian and bicycling opportunities– Careful planning and infrastructure investmentscan reverse the decline in non-motorized trans-portation.

Promoting “Smart Growth”9. Redevelop urban areas in a sustainable way –

State policy can encourage the redevelopment ofold industrial and residential areas in cities, whereper-capita global warming emissions from trans-portation are much lower than in newer suburbs.Redevelopment should be pedestrian friendly, in-corporate mixed uses, be accessible to transit, andprovide opportunities for existing residents to ben-efit from neighborhood improvements.

10. Encourage compact development – Through re-vised zoning laws, many towns are returning to amore compact, traditional New England style ofdevelopment that relies less on the automobileand can allow people to complete more of theirdaily tasks via transit, by bicycle or on foot.

11. Support transit-oriented development – Provid-ing residential and commercial opportunities neartransit stations can magnify the benefits of tran-sit and reduce vehicle travel.

Shifting Gears 5

12. Discourage sprawl by making it pay its own way– In Maryland and elsewhere, state and local gov-ernments are eliminating public subsidies forsprawling development, thereby encouragingmore sustainable use of land and resources.

Reducing Single-Passenger Automobile Commuting13. Create and expand commute-trip reduction pro-

grams – Employer-based programs to discouragesingle-passenger commuting can cut rush-hourautomobile trips by as much as 20 percent.

14. Encourage workers to live near their work or livenear transit – Long automobile commutes areresponsible for an increasing share of global warm-ing emissions. Public and private policies shouldencourage people to live nearer to their work orcloser to public transit, thus reducing the needfor long trips to and from work.

Reallocating the Costs of Driving15. Calculate auto insurance rates by the mile – Shift-

ing automobile insurance from a flat, yearly rateto one calculated by the mile can discourage ex-cessive driving (particularly among the most dan-gerous drivers) – both reducing crashes and globalwarming pollution. Other insurance reforms canassign the proper risk premium to heavier, less-efficient SUVs.

16. Allocate fairly the costs of parking – Many em-ployers provide free parking to employees – andmany towns require ample parking for stores andbusinesses – but few subsidize transit or provideequal benefits to pedestrians or bike riders. Re-ducing parking requirements and “leveling theplaying field” for transportation alternatives caneliminate these subsidies for driving.

17. Eliminate other subsidies for driving – Fromgovernment highway maintenance expendituresto fuel subsidies, taxpayers often subsidize exces-sive driving. Making individuals pay the full costof driving will encourage cleaner and less-expen-sive alternatives.

Reforming Transportation Planning and Finance18. Consider adoption of least-cost planning – De-

mand reduction, transit and other alternatives areoften cheaper and less polluting ways to solvetransportation problems in the long run thanbuilding new highways. “Least-cost” planningthat incorporates the social costs of automobiledriving and the long-term benefits of stable transitinfrastructure may reduce global warming emis-sions and reduce the cost of transportation over-all.

19. Consider global warming in transportation plan-ning – Transportation plans should fully factorin the impact of new highways and other projectson the climate.

20. Fund transit and other alternatives at higher lev-els – New England states have not taken full ad-vantage of the ability to use federal funds forcleaner transportation options, and several lackany stable source of funding for transit. Prioritiz-ing funding for transit and other clean optionscan help get badly needed projects off the draw-ing board and into place, as well as help transitagencies maintain high levels of service and rea-sonable fares.

6 Shifting Gears

INTRODUCTION

New England’s transportation system hasshaped the region’s economy and culturesince the beginning of its history. The bus-

tling port towns of the colonial period grew up aroundvigorous trans-Atlantic commerce, while footpathsand country roads linked isolated inland communi-ties with each other and the rest of the world. The19th century brought an expanded network of turn-pikes and the region’s first railroads. With industrial-ization came bigger, more complex cities and urbanstreetcar networks to help residents of those cities getfrom place to place.

The creation of the Interstate highway network in the1950s led to even greater changes, spawning massivesuburbanization and greater reliance on the automo-bile for all forms of travel – even as it enhanced mo-bility and created new options for New Englanders.At the same time, air travel allowed New England resi-dents to quickly travel to distant parts of the UnitedStates and the globe.

At the dawn of the 21st century, however, New En-gland faces serious transportation challenges. Increas-ing highway congestion makes travel around andthrough the region’s major cities a costly, time-con-suming nightmare for many travelers. Our transpor-tation system’s reliance on cheap oil leaves oureconomy vulnerable to the wild swings of global pe-troleum markets – and will leave us even more vul-nerable in the future as oil becomes harder to find.Many transportation systems – including highways,railroads and urban transit networks – suffer fromaging infrastructure. And, not least of all, our trans-portation system imposes huge costs on the region’senvironment and public health – from the destruc-tion of open space caused by automobile-dominatedsuburban sprawl to unhealthy levels of air pollutionto a growing contribution to the warming of theplanet.

Thankfully, there are many concrete steps New En-gland states can take to deal with the many challengesfacing our region’s transportation system. Both withinthe region and elsewhere in the country, communi-ties, states, businesses and others are taking innova-tive steps to make their transportation systems moreefficient, more sustainable, and more supportive of ahigh quality of life.

This report focuses on one of the most importantchallenges facing New England’s transportation sys-tem – the need to reduce pollution that contributesto global warming. We list 20 “bright ideas” that arebeing implemented either in New England or else-where, or that have been the subject of intensive study,and which can make a strong contribution towardreducing our impact on the global climate.

But while global warming is the primary focus of thisreport, many of the policies, programs and other ef-forts described here also address other key challengesfacing the region: from oil supply challenges to sub-urban sprawl, and from traffic congestion to air pol-lution.

Addressing these challenges may seem daunting. In-deed, just as New England’s current transportationsystem is the result of decisions made over the courseof centuries, it will take a long-term, concerted effortto achieve the efficient, reliable and environmentallysustainable transportation system that the region mustdevelop for the future.

The 20 ideas proposed in this report are a startingpoint for that long-term journey, but good ideas arenot enough. It will take vision, leadership and coop-eration for New England to meet its transportationchallenges and do its part to reduce the threat posedby global warming. The time to begin is now.

Shifting Gears 7

Transportation and Global Warming in New England

Global Warming Emissions

from Transportation

New England’s transportation system is the region’snumber one source of carbon dioxide, which is theleading pollutant responsible for global warming. In2001, the region’s transportation sector produced ap-proximately 71.8 million metric tons (MMT) of car-bon dioxide – more than was produced by the directuse of fossil fuels in all the region’s homes, businessesand industrial facilities. (See Fig. 1.)

Consumption of motor gasoline – the vast majorityof which is used to power cars, light trucks and SUVs– produces three-quarters of the region’s transporta-tion-sector emissions of carbon dioxide. Distillate(diesel) fuel, which powers trains and heavy-dutytrucks, was responsible for about 16 percent of theregion’s transportation emissions, with jet fuel pro-ducing another 7 percent.2

New England’s transportation-sector emissions aresignificant on a global scale. In 2001, the region’s trans-portation sector emitted more carbon dioxide thanthe entire economies of Austria, Portugal, Israel andmore than 150 other nations.4

In 2001, the region’s transportation sectoremitted more carbon dioxide than the entireeconomies of Austria, Portugal, Israel andmore than 150 other nations.

Ominously, transportation emissions in New Englandhave risen significantly over the last decade – even inthe years since the adoption of the New EnglandGovernors/Eastern Canadian Premiers ClimateChange Action Plan in 2001. Between 2001 and 2003,gasoline sales in the region increased by 8.6 percent,with increases taking place in every New Englandstate.5 Despite a dramatic run-up in gasoline prices,New Englanders drove only slightly fewer miles onthe region’s highways in 2005 than they did during2004.6

The Challenge Facing New

England

Achieving New England’s goals for reducing globalwarming pollution will require a strong effort to re-duce transportation-sector emissions. Should NewEngland continue to produce the level of transporta-tion carbon dioxide emissions it produced in 2001,the region would have to slash emissions from therest of the economy by nearly one-quarter in order tomeet the goal of reducing emissions to 10 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2020. Such reductions wouldbe achievable and beneficial, but their sheer size illus-trates the importance of getting the transportation sec-tor to do its share to meet the region’s global warminggoals.

To achieve meaningful reductions, the region will needto slow or reverse three long-term trends: the spread

Fig. 2. Transportation Sources of CarbonDioxide in New England, 20013

Motor Gasoline74%

Distillate Fuel 16%

Jet Fuel 7%

Residual Fuel1%

Natural Gas

1%

Other Petroleum1%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Transportation

Electricity Generation

Residential

Industrial

Commercial

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Million Metric Tons)

Fig. 1. New England Sources of Carbon Dioxide, 20011

8 Shifting Gears

of auto-dependent suburban sprawl as a dominantland-use pattern; stagnation in the fuel economy ofthe cars and light trucks that produce the vast bulk ofcarbon dioxide emissions; and the increased use ofhigh-carbon modes of transportation such as cars andairplanes rather than transit or walking.

Automobile-Dependent SuburbanDevelopmentPrior to World War II, New England communitieswere largely organized along traditional lines, withindustrial and commercial activity located in an ur-ban or town center and residences either in close prox-imity to these centers of civic life and work or in ruralareas. In some larger cities, “streetcar suburbs” – and,increasingly, suburbs reachable by automobile – al-lowed some to establish residences in less-populatedtowns outside urban centers.

Following World War II, a variety of government pro-grams and social forces – ranging from the construc-tion of Interstate highways to federal subsidies forhome ownership – caused a boom in the construc-tion of suburban housing, followed by the shift ofcommercial and industrial activity to the suburbs. Thetrend toward suburbanization – including the recentgrowth of “exurbs,” formerly rural communities thatare now experiencing low-density residential growth– continues to the present. Between 1990 and 1999,the population of New England central cities declinedby 2.4 percent, while the population of the metro-politan areas surrounding those cities increased by 4.1percent.7 In 1960, nearly 17 percent of the popula-tion of the Boston metropolitan area lived in the cityof Boston itself; by 2000, that percentage had droppedto 12 percent.8

Coupled with the demise of many urban transit sys-tems, these new development patterns increased theneed to use automobiles to get to and from work and

to complete many daily tasks. In 1960, for example,64 percent of American workers used private vehicles(either single-passenger or carpool) to get to and fromwork; by 2000, nearly 90 percent did.9 In the Bostonmetropolitan area in 1980, 61 percent of workers droveto work alone. By 2000, 74 percent did.10

As a result, vehicle travel has increased dramatically inNew England over the last several decades. Since 1980,vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) on New England high-ways have increased by about two-thirds – from 78billion miles per year to nearly 130 billion miles in2003.11

Fig. 3. Annual Vehicle-Miles Traveledin New England

This increase in vehicle travel would have less of animpact on global warming if global warming emis-sions from each vehicle mile had remained constantor declined. But the reverse has been true over thepast decade – the car and light truck fleet has beengetting less efficient, thus compounding the globalwarming impact of increased vehicle travel.

Declining Fuel EfficiencyVehicle carbon dioxide emissions are directly relatedto the amount and type of fuel consumed. Thus, im-proving the fuel efficiency of vehicles can reduce car-bon dioxide pollution.

Unfortunately, over the past decade and a half, thefuel efficiency of the overall light-duty vehicle fleet(which includes cars, SUVs and minivans) has beendeclining. An EPA analysis of fuel economy trendsfound that the average real-world fuel economy oflight-duty vehicles sold in 2003 was lower than the

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Year

In the Boston metropolitan area in 1980,61 percent of workers drove to work alone.By 2000, 74 percent did.

Shifting Gears 9

average fuel economy of vehicles sold in 1981. In-deed, the average real-world fuel economy of new carsand light trucks actually declined by 7 percent be-tween 1988 and 2003.12 (See Fig. 4.)

Fig. 4. Average Fuel Economy for NewLight-Duty Vehicle Fleet on the Decline13

one-third of all vehicles registered in the six New En-gland states were trucks, compared to a little morethan one-tenth in the mid-1970s.14 (See Fig. 5.)

Declining fuel economy and increasing vehicle travelare responsible for the trend toward increasing trans-portation-related carbon dioxide emissions in NewEngland. But the trend has been exacerbated over timeby the general shift from low-emission to high-emis-sion forms of travel.

Shifts to High-Emission TravelModesThe shift from transit to automobile use is just oneexample of the general shift from forms of transpor-tation with low per-mile carbon dioxide emissions toforms with high emissions.

Inter-City Passenger TransportPrior to the construction of Interstate highways andthe expansion of commercial air travel in the 1950sand 1960s, a great deal of the travel between cities inNew England (and from cities in New England toother regions) occurred by rail. Inter-city passengerrail service connected residents of all six New Englandstates and tied the region to the rest of the nation.

However, since World War II, the nation’s intercitypassenger rail system has atrophied. (See Figs. 6 a-b,next page.) Even though New England remains oneof the most significant bastions of passenger rail travelin the U.S., the system in the region is not as exten-sive, and service not as frequent, as it was in the early1960s.

Passenger rail uses less energy and produces signifi-cantly less carbon dioxide pollution per passenger-mile than either automobiles or airplanes. (See Fig.7, next page.) High-speed regional passenger rail, suchas the Amtrak Acela service along the Northeast cor-ridor, can provide door-to-door travel times compa-rable with air or automobile travel. Expandedhigh-speed rail service could satisfy much of this travelneed. For example, approximately 20 percent of theflights to and from Boston’s Logan airport serve des-tinations in the Atlantic states and eastern Canada,from Washington, D.C. to Toronto. Many of these 4million-plus passengers could theoretically be servedby high-speed rail.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Year19

7519

8119

7719

8319

8519

8919

9119

8719

7919

9319

9519

9719

9920

0120

03

Fig. 5. Automobile vs. Truck Shareof New England Vehicle Fleet

At the same time that vehicle fuel economy has beenstagnating or declining, more and more Americans –including New England residents – have taken to driv-ing SUVs and other light trucks, which are less effi-cient than cars. Cars make up a decreasing share ofthe vehicle fleet in New England – by 2003, about

Car - CAFE Standard

Car - Real World Mileage

Combined Real World Mileage

Truck - CAFE Standard

Truck - Real World Mileage

10 Shifting Gears

FreightFreight transportation has also shifted toward modeswith higher per-mile global warming emissions. Inthe past several decades, more freight has been shippedby truck (and to a lesser extent by air), moving awayfrom railroads and waterways. Since trains and wa-ter-borne vessels are about three times more fuel-effi-cient than trucks for the movement of cargo, a shifttoward the movement of freight by rail or water couldsignificantly reduce carbon dioxide pollution.17

Rail remains a significant means of shipping freightin the U.S., accounting for approximately 28 percentof all freight ton-miles nationwide. But there is littlefreight railroad service provided by major nationalrailroads in southern New England and none in north-ern New England (Maine, Vermont and New Hamp-shire), although numerous regional and local railroadsdo provide freight service.18 All six New England statesranked in the bottom 10 nationally in 2003 for railfreight tonnage originated in-state and only Massa-chusetts escaped the bottom 10 for rail freight ton-nage received.19

In addition, New England’s freight connections withother regions of the country are no longer adequate.Currently, New England’s freight rail network is con-nected to the rest of the country through only onemain connection at Selkirk, NY, near Albany.20 Freightfrom southeastern Connecticut, for example, musttypically be shipped north to Massachusetts, acrossthe Hudson River and back down the other side ofthe Hudson to reach the mid-Atlantic states.

Because of the lack of modern freight rail infrastruc-ture in the region and inadequate connections to therest of the nation, a great deal of New England’s freightmust arrive by truck, thus increasing carbon dioxideemissions from the movement of goods.

The Demise of WalkingNo form of travel produces fewer carbon dioxideemissions than walking. Yet, walking – once an ex-ceedingly common way to commute to work or com-plete daily tasks – has increasingly been replaced bymotorized forms of transportation.

In 1960, for example, nearly 10 percent of workersnationwide walked to work.21 By 2000, only 3 per-cent walked to work.22 The same trend appears to

Figs. 6 a-b. National Passenger Rail System, 1962 and200415

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Light Truck/SUV

Air (domestic)

Car

Intercity Rail(Amtrak)

Commuter Rail

BTU per passenger-mile

Fig. 7. Energy Use per Passenger-Mile (BTU) ofDifferent Transportation Modes16

Shifting Gears 11

hold true in New England as well: in 2000, 4.1 per-cent of Boston metropolitan area commuters walkedto work; compared with 5.2 percent in 1990 and 7.7percent in 1980.23

In 1960, nearly 10 percent of workers nation-wide walked to work. By 2000, only 3 percentwalked to work.

While detailed information on how people travel forpurposes other than work – to shop, play or to com-plete other chores – is harder to come by, it stands toreason that the spread-out, automobile-dependentdevelopment patterns that have become prevalent inNew England over the past several decades would alsoreduce pedestrian trips for these other purposes. Atrip to a corner store that could easily be completedon foot in a traditional New England town character-ized by compact development and mixed uses wouldlikely require the use of a car in most New Englandsuburbs.

Reducing Carbon Dioxide

Emissions: A Long-Term

Process that Must Begin

Now

The three shifts discussed above – toward auto-de-pendent suburban sprawl, toward lower fuel efficiencyfor cars and trucks, and toward higher-emission formsof transportation – have occurred over the course ofseveral decades. Changing those trends will take time.

Nevertheless, it is important that New England beginto address the problem now – both to forestall thepotentially devastating impacts of global warming onthe region and to enhance the region’s economy, healthand quality of life.

The Dangers of Global WarmingGlobal warming poses a direct and serious threat toNew England’s environment, economy and health.

Global warming is, in fact, already affecting NewEngland. Scientists estimate that temperatures in theregion have increased by 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit over

the last century.24 Sea levels have already risen by 2 to11 inches over the last century at various points alongthe New England coast.25 Reductions in maple syrupproduction in northern New England and earlier ice-out times on the region’s lakes presage the greater eco-logical shifts that are to come if global warmingemissions and temperatures continue to rise.26

Should emissions continue along current trends, lowtemperatures in the region could increase by 5.7 to9.7˚ F and high temperatures could increase by 3.6 to9˚ F by 2100 – triggering greater sea level rise, changesin precipitation patterns, shifts in ecosystems, in-creased health threats from air pollution, extreme heatand insect-borne disease, and a host of other prob-lems.27 The skiing, maple syrup, tourism and fishingindustries are particularly vulnerable to the impactsof global warming, but all New Englanders wouldlikely see economic impacts as insurance premiumsand property damage – particularly in the coastal ar-eas that are home to most of the region’s population –rise.28

New England alone cannot solve global warming. Butit can do its part to reduce global warming emissionsand, in the process, set an example for other regionsto do likewise. Each year that goes by without strongaction to reduce emissions makes the future transi-tion to a low-emission economy that much more dif-ficult: both by increasing concentrations of globalwarming gases in the atmosphere and by forcing aquicker, more dramatic transition to low-emissiontechnologies further down the line.

Other Benefits of Reducing GlobalWarming Emissions fromTransportationReducing carbon dioxide emissions from transporta-tion is often thought to require large expenditures andto hamper economic growth. But while reducingemissions will require investment, that investment willlikely pay off in the long run through the establish-ment of a vigorous, sustainable economy.

• Reduced dependence on oil. The vast majorityof the energy used to power New England’s trans-portation system is in the form of petroleum. Therecent rise in gasoline, diesel and home heatingoil prices – which has been largely triggered by

12 Shifting Gears

increasing global demand for oil – has sucked bil-lions of dollars out of the region’s economy. Themore money consumers must spend on oil (all ofwhich comes from outside the region), the lessmoney they will have to invest in local, New En-gland-based businesses.

Energy industry analysts suggest that the recentspike in oil prices – which has driven gasoline anddiesel prices above $2 per gallon – is not likely toabate in a significant way any time soon. In fact,some analysts suggest that the price of crude oilcould double within the next several years.

A transportation strategy that moves people andgoods more efficiently – either by improving theefficiency of vehicles or by shifting toward moreefficient modes of travel – will reduce NewEngland’s exposure to future oil price shocks andkeep more dollars in the local economy, ratherthen sending them outside the region for fuelpurchases.

• Reduced highway congestion and maintenance.New England’s regional highway network cur-rently suffers under the strain of having to servethe bulk of the region’s passenger and freight tran-sit needs. Choke points such as the I-95 corridorin Connecticut and Rhode Island, the I-93 corri-dor in southern New Hampshire, the Route 128and I-495 corridors in Massachusetts, and partsof I-84 and I-91 have long experienced gridlock– wasting motorists’ fuel and their valuable time.Expanding these highways to accommodate evenmore vehicle traffic (and thus increasing globalwarming emissions over the long term) is an ex-traordinarily expensive solution. The I-93 expan-sion project in southern New Hampshire, forexample, is estimated to cost $421 million.29

Reducing the number of single-passenger andfreight trips on the region’s highways would re-duce the demand for highway expansion, allowfreer flow of people and goods through the re-gion, and likely save on highway maintenanceexpenditures as well.

• Vigorous, healthy communities. A low-carbontransportation strategy can also help to create com-munities where people like to live and do busi-ness. Numerous studies have shown that

communities with walkable streets and availabletransit service have higher property values thanother types of communities.30 The resurgence ofdowntowns in Boston, Portsmouth, Portland,Providence and other New England cities pointsto the desirability of less auto-intensive forms ofdevelopment. While sprawling suburban devel-opment remains a frequent choice for those whocan afford it, transit-oriented and more compactdevelopment patterns have proven increasinglypopular. People who live in more densely devel-oped neighborhoods where they can walk safelyand enjoyably have been shown to be more fit –with lower weight and lower blood pressure – thanpeople who do not have the option of walking.31

Moreover, access to transit and reduced automo-bile dependence can reduce household transpor-tation expenditures, again giving individuals moredisposable income to pump into local economies.Thoughtful development that follows traditionalNew England development patterns has the po-tential to be both a more attractive and more sus-tainable alternative to sprawl.

• A healthier environment and population. Muchof New England suffers from unhealthy air qual-ity, due largely to emissions from motor vehicles.Reducing the amount of miles traveled on theregion’s highways can reduce emissions of manyharmful air pollutants, while the compact devel-opment patterns that allow for low-carbon trans-portation alternatives can help to preserve openspace and water quality in the region.

Studies have shown that communitieswith walkable streets and available tran-sit service have higher property valuesthan other types of communities.

Shifting Gears 13

Reducing global warming pollution from trans-portation will not be easy, and there are no single, “silver bullet” solutions. But it is pos-

sible. There are many policy tools available that havealready been put into place by companies, local gov-ernments and state governments – both in New En-gland and elsewhere – that can be adapted andimplemented here. Moreover, many of these tools havebenefits that build off of one another, creating syner-gies that yield even greater reductions in global warm-ing pollution and fossil fuel dependence.

These tools fall into six categories:• Reducing per-mile emissions from vehicles• Encouraging transit and other low-carbon trans-

portation alternatives• Promoting “smart growth”• Reducing single-passenger automobile commut-

ing• Reallocating the costs of driving• Revamping transportation planning

In this document, we focus mainly on policies thathave either been implemented with success in NewEngland or elsewhere, or that have been the subjectof discussion and study for some time. By no meansdo these policies represent all of the options on thetable for New England to use in its efforts to reduceglobal warming emissions from transportation.

Reducing Per-Mile

Vehicle Emissions

Key recommendations:• Implement the clean cars program• Provide incentives for the purchase of more fuel-

efficient vehicles• Require the sale of fuel-saving tires• Reduce emissions from government and transit

fleets

The declining fuel efficiency of New Englanders’ per-sonal vehicles is a major contributing factor to therise in carbon dioxide emissions from transportation.To reduce per-mile vehicle emissions, the vehicle fleetcan either become more efficient in its use of gasoline

or rely on lower-carbon fuels such as plant-basedbiofuels or electricity.

Several policies have the potential to significantly re-duce per-mile carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles.Many of these same policies can also lead to gains infuel efficiency, which can save New Englanders moneyat the pump while protecting the region’s economyfrom wild swings in oil and gasoline prices.

Clean Cars ProgramThe state of California has adopted a series of emis-sion standards for automobiles and light-duty trucksthat will reduce carbon dioxide emissions from ve-hicles. In 1990, the state adopted the Low-EmissionVehicle/Zero-Emission Vehicle – or LEV/ZEV – pro-gram, which requires the sale of increasing numbersof low- and zero-emitting vehicles over time. The pro-gram currently requires the sale of significant num-bers of hybrid-electric vehicles, with a long-term focuson the development of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles,which hold the potential for extremely low emissionsof carbon dioxide if the hydrogen fuel is generatedfrom renewable sources.

More recently, in 2002, California adopted a law re-quiring tailpipe emission limits for global warminggases. The tailpipe standards, which were adopted byCalifornia officials in 2004, require reductions in car-bon dioxide emissions from vehicles beginning in the2009 model year. By 2016, new cars will be requiredto achieve 34 percent reductions from current carbondioxide emission levels and new light trucks willachieve 25 percent reductions.32 While the vehiclesthat would be sold under the program would be some-what more expensive, the expense would be more thanmade up over time in reductions in operating costs –primarily the cost of fuel. California officials antici-pate that vehicles complying with the new standardswill actually save motorists an average of $3 to $7 permonth (and those savings are based on an average fuelprice of $1.74 per gallon, well below the $2-plus pricesrecently charged at pumps in New England).33

Collectively, these standards, known as the “clean carsprogram,” could lead to a substantial savings in car-

New England’s Transportation /

Global Warming Toolbox

14 Shifting Gears

bon dioxide emissions. Savings from the five NewEngland states that have thus far adopted the pro-gram will amount to approximately 10 million tonsof carbon dioxide per year by 2020 – the equivalentof taking about 2 million of today’s vehicles off theroad.34

Among the New England states, only New Hamp-shire has not yet moved to adopt the program. Statesin the region should maintain their commitment tothe clean cars program by finalizing adoption wherethey have not done so already. And New Hampshireshould follow the lead of the majority of New En-gland states and adopt the program itself.

Incentives for More Fuel-EfficientVehiclesThe recent rise in gasoline prices – coupled with theintroduction of fuel-saving hybrid-electric vehicles –has caused many would-be car buyers to place moreemphasis on fuel efficiency when making vehicle pur-chases. The New England states could further rein-force consumers’ willingness to purchase morefuel-efficient vehicles by providing financial incentives.

Financial incentives can come in several forms. Inaddition to a federal tax deduction, Maine and Con-necticut already provide tax breaks to consumers whopurchase fuel-efficient hybrids, and Rhode Islandgrants a tax credit for the purchase of electric ve-hicles.35 But direct incentives tied to vehicle fuel effi-ciency (or to per-mile carbon dioxide emissions) canalso play a role in encouraging more sustainable ve-hicle choices.

One alternative is to finance incentives through feescharged to purchasers of less-efficient vehicles. Thisapproach – known colloquially as a “feebate” plan –has been under discussion in Rhode Island, Maineand Connecticut. Under such an approach, the statewould calculate the fee or rebate a vehicle purchaserwould pay or receive based on the vehicle’s fuel effi-ciency or its emissions of greenhouse gases. Purchas-ers of the most-efficient vehicles, such as hybrids,would receive the largest incentives; those purchasingthe least-efficient vehicles, such as large SUVs andsports cars, would pay the greatest fees.

Depending on whether vehicle manufacturers opt toprovide more fuel-efficient choices for consumers in

response to the program, the impact on overall fueleconomy and vehicle emissions could be significant.One recent analysis conducted for the Rhode Islandgreenhouse gas stakeholder process estimated that afeebate program could reduce gasoline consumption(and therefore global warming emissions) from light-duty vehicles by between 5 percent and 31 percentbelow business-as-usual levels by 2020.36

There are numerous issues that must be resolved for astate to implement an incentive program; specifically,which vehicles will receive incentives and how greatthose incentives will be, whether the incentive will begiven out directly or passed along as a reduction in thevehicle sales tax, and whether the incentive will be givenat the time of purchase or the time of registration.

Because the response of manufacturers to the programis critical, a regional or multi-state vehicle incentiveplan with consistent provisions and aggressive targetswould likely be more effective than a piecemeal state-by-state approach. New England states should worktogether to devise an incentive program designed tosignificantly reduce gasoline use and carbon dioxideemissions from vehicles and to reward New England-ers who make vehicle choices that contribute to achiev-ing the region’s climate protection goals.

Fuel-Saving TiresAutomobile manufacturers typically equip their newcars with low-rolling resistance tires. These tires – in-stalled on new vehicles to help manufacturers meetfederal vehicle fuel economy guidelines – can reducevehicle fuel consumption by about 3 percent versusconventional tires. That may not seem like much, butit is a significant reduction that is achieved at verylow cost – the additional cost of the tires is typicallyrecovered through fuel savings after about one year,with no loss in safety or tire durability.37

Unfortunately, most consumers do not have the abil-ity to choose replacement tires with low rolling resis-tance once their original tires have worn out.California adopted legislation requiring that replace-ment tires sold to consumers beginning in July 2008have the same average energy efficiency as the origi-nal tires provided by automakers.38 The state will ratethe energy efficiency of different tires and this infor-mation will be readily available to New England statesto develop similar requirements. Legislation currently

Shifting Gears 15

under consideration in Massachusetts would achievea similar goal.

States should consider requiring, or encouraging thepurchase of, fuel-saving tires as a “no regrets” mea-sure to improve fuel economy and reduce globalwarming emissions.

Reduce Emissions from Governmentand Transit FleetsState and local governments and transit agencies aremajor purchasers of cars, vans, and buses. Policies thatrequire vehicle fleet operators to purchase the most en-ergy-efficient vehicle that will meet a given purpose canreduce overall global warming emissions.

Concerns over global warming and petroleumdependence have led many to look at other optionsto fuel America’s transportation system. Each ofthe options has advantages and disadvantages.

• Biofuels – Plant-based fuels such as ethanoland biodiesel can reduce global warming emis-sions from vehicles. Generally, plant-based fu-els are blended with gasoline or diesel fuel atconcentrations ranging from 2 percent to 85percent. Low percentage blends of ethanol andbiodiesel have the advantage of being usablein conventional vehicles – higher blends mayrequire special equipment. While biofuels havethe potential to reduce global warming pollu-tion, much depends on the amount of energyused to grow the crops used to produce thefuels. Cellulosic ethanol, which is made fromwoody plant material and “energy crops” suchas switchgrass, has the potential to have amuch better energy balance than ethanol madefrom corn. Ethanol and biodiesel also affectemissions of smog forming and other pollut-ants – in some cases for the better and inothers for the worse, depending on the blendof fuel. The impact on air quality, and theenergy balance of the fuel itself, should beconsidered carefully in policies to promotebiofuels.

• Electricity – In the 1990s, major automakersintroduced limited runs of electric vehicles(EVs) that draw power from a home’s connec-tion to the electric grid and store it in an on-board battery. While EVs were attractive tosome consumers due to their efficiency, quietand zero emissions, the vehicles also sufferedfrom limited range and long recharging times.Recent advances in battery technology – in-cluding increased storage capacity and faster

charging times – have again made EVs an at-tractive, low-emission option for the future.In addition, electricity from the grid can beused to power “plug-in hybrid” vehicles, whichcouple the efficiency benefits of an electricmotor with the range of an on-board internalcombustion engine. Pure electric vehicles re-duce per-mile carbon dioxide emissions byabout 40 percent versus conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.39

• Hydrogen – Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles havethe potential to be highly efficient and to re-lease no pollution from their tailpipes. How-ever, hydrogen faces a number of technologicaland economic hurdles before it can become acompetitive automotive fuel and only a fewfuel-cell vehicles currently exist as prototypes.The impact of hydrogen on global warmingemissions and the environment depends on theefficiency of the process for producing the hy-drogen and on its source. Some proposedsources of hydrogen – such as coal – may re-sult in global warming pollution as great as orgreater than the use of gasoline in a hybrid-electric vehicle.40

• Natural gas – Natural gas has recently becomean increasingly common fuel in centrally fu-eled fleets, particularly transit buses. Hondaalso makes a natural gas version of its Civic.Natural gas-powered vehicles may have loweremissions of both global warming pollutantsand conventional pollutants that contribute toozone smog. However, concerns about the fu-ture availability of natural gas, along with thehigh cost of natural gas filling stations andthe need to carry large storage tanks on boardthe vehicle, argue against the potential of natu-ral gas to become a widespread automotive fuel.

Issues in Focus: Alternative Transportation Fuels

16 Shifting Gears

New England state, county and local governmentsown 140,000 vehicles, which consumed 86 milliongallons of gasoline in 2003, representing 1.3 percentof total gasoline use in the region.41 To reduce emis-sions from public vehicle fleets, local and state gov-ernments can adopt purchasing policies that prioritizelow global warming emissions as a criterion in select-ing new cars and trucks for state use. Connecticut, forexample, adopted a standard in 2004 requiring newvehicles purchased by the state to have the lowest car-bon dioxide emissions per mile of any vehicle in thatclass.42 In Massachusetts, the state’s Climate ProtectionPlan calls for the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles.43

New England’s transit agencies operate more than3,000 buses and 1,000 vans.44 Replacing conventionalgasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles with more efficientvehicles or ones that are powered by lower-carbon fuelscan reduce the region’s global warming emissions.State, county and local governments already consideremissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and

particulate matter from different technologies whenmaking purchasing decisions, and could evaluate ve-hicles for their global warming impact also.

Currently, most transit vehicles operate on gasolineor diesel. Emissions can be reduced by switching tofuels with lower carbon content and by using light-weight materials such as carbon fiber for vehicle con-struction. Hybrid-electric buses, partially powered byelectricity, can produce 10 to 30 percent less globalwarming pollution than conventional buses – a levelof savings roughly confirmed by a recent pilot projectin Connecticut.47 Compressed natural gas, an increas-ingly common fuel valued for its reduced emissionsof other air pollutants, currently does not provide re-ductions in global warming emissions in transit ve-hicles but may in the future as the technology develops.Biodiesel and ethanol also have lower emissions, andthe high cost of petroleum may make those alterna-tives more cost effective in the future.

CT Transit

In 2003, CT Transit, the transit agency for theHartford, Stamford and New Haven areas,obtained two diesel hybrid-electric buses. Theagency has closely monitored the buses’ fuelconsumption and emissions performance.

The hybrid buses proved 10 to 15 percent moreefficient than diesel buses – less than the 50

percent efficiency improvement promoted bythe buses’ manufacturer, but still a significantsavings. The hybrid buses did not deliverreductions in emissions of health-threateningparticulates versus comparable diesel buses.45

While the hybrid buses currently cost anestimated $200,000 more than conventionalbuses, today’s volatile gasoline and diesel fuelprices, coupled with the prospect of decliningcosts for the buses as the technology becomesmore common, could bring them within reachof additional transit fleets.

Some New England transit agencies havechosen to reduce the environmental impacts oftheir fleets by purchasing buses that run oncompressed natural gas (CNG). CNG busesproduce less soot and fewer smog-formingpollutants than conventional diesel buses andare far cheaper than gasoline-electric hybrids.However, CNG buses have lower fuel economyand emit methane (a potent global warminggas), and thus have no global warmingbenefit.46

CT Transit’s hybrid buses are at least 10 to 15percent more efficient than conventional dieselbuses.

Signs of Progress: Connecticut’s Hybrid-Electric Buses

Shifting Gears 17

Encouraging Transit and

Other Low-Carbon

Transportation

Alternatives

Key Recommendations• Invest in improvements to inter-city, commuter,

urban, and freight rail systems and devise a long-term regional rail plan.

• Promote connectivity within existing transit sys-tems.

• Address suburb-to-suburb travel through expan-sion of transit infrastructure and the use of shuttleservices, vanpools and carpools.

• Improve the effectiveness of transit in smaller ur-ban and rural areas.

• Prioritize investment in pedestrian and bicyclefacilities.

Single-passenger automobile travel is among the mostcarbon-intensive forms of transportation. States canreduce global warming pollution from transportationby encouraging people to drive less and to rely moreon other forms of transportation. But to achieve this,transportation alternatives must be available, afford-able and convenient.

New England already possesses a substantial transitinfrastructure, with a far-reaching and heavily trav-eled rail system and vital urban transit networks inmany cities. The region’s two largest metropolitan ar-eas (Boston and New York City, whose metropolitanarea extends into Connecticut) rank fifth and first inthe nation, respectively, for percentage of commutersusing transit.48 In addition, the region’s compact cityand town centers and its growing network of bicycletrails provide ideal opportunities to walk or bicycle towork, shopping or recreational opportunities.

Yet, the New England states have only begun to de-velop the potential of transit and other alternatives todriving. To expand rail and bus service and improvepedestrian and biking facilities, states and communi-ties can look to successful examples both within theregion and elsewhere.

Rail InfrastructureNew England’s robust passenger rail network is theproduct of investments dating back more than a cen-tury. As recently as the 1960s, the survival of inter-city and commuter rail in New England was injeopardy, as it was elsewhere in the country. By the1970s, a passenger rail network that just a few de-cades earlier had linked residents of all six New En-gland states to eastern Canada, New York and moredistant points had atrophied severely, with the end ofservice to New Hampshire and Maine, the retrench-ment of commuter rail service in Connecticut andMassachusetts, and reduced service and aging infra-structure everywhere.

The past two decades, however, have witnessed a railrenaissance in New England. The expansion of com-muter rail service in Massachusetts, the extension andrenovation of several of Boston’s subway lines, the cre-ation of the new Acela Express high-speed rail servicebetween Boston and New York City, and the returnof inter-city rail service to parts of New Hampshireand Maine have signaled a growing appreciation ofthe benefits of rail travel as part of the region’s trans-portation strategy.

In addition to providing a more energy-efficient meansof transportation than either air or car travel (see page10), rail can also be used as a tool to promote urbanredevelopment, more compact development patterns,and other changes in land-use patterns that can pro-vide an alternative to automobile-dependent subur-ban sprawl.

Major Priorities

INTER-CITY RAILExpanding and improving inter-city rail service inNew England would provide a less carbon-intensivealternative to air travel and long car trips for journeyswithin the region and to nearby cities.

Recent efforts to expand inter-city rail service in NewEngland have proven very successful. Amtrak’s AcelaExpress high-speed rail service along the NortheastCorridor, while plagued with technical problems, hashelped boost rail ridership in the region. In 2004, 14.2million passengers rode trains in the Northeast Cor-ridor, up 10 percent from 2000 and 41 percent from1992.49 The restoration of rail service between Bos-

18 Shifting Gears

ton and southern Maine has succeeded as well. (See“Signs of Progress.”)

The following improvements to inter-city rail servicein New England are vital steps to reducing greenhousegas emissions.• Increase the frequency and speed of the trains on

Amtrak’s Downeaster and make the service per-manent.

• In Maine, extend service northward from Port-land to Freeport, Brunswick, Rockport and Au-burn.

• Connect North and South stations in Boston tofacilitate rail travel for passengers whose travel doesnot end in Boston.

• Add Amtrak lines in Vermont from Burlingtonto Albany and Whitehall, NY.

• Devise a long-term regional rail plan for NewEngland designed to make inter-city rail (includ-ing expanded high-speed rail) a central cog in theregion’s transportation system within the next twodecades.

Commuter RailCommuter rail service in New England is extensiveand popular. Over 400 miles of commuter rail con-nect Providence, Worcester, Fitchburg, Newburyportand other cities to Boston’s urban rail system. EasternConnecticut is served by the Shore Line East serviceconnecting New Haven to New London, and west-ern Connecticut is linked to New York City via theMetroNorth New Haven Line and its various branchlines.

Completion of the Greenbush and New Bedford/FallRiver extensions to the MBTA commuter rail net-work will allow nearly 17,000 additional riders to usethe train daily.54 If past ridership trends continue, farmore people will soon use the routes. The followingcommuter rail improvements should also be priori-tized:

• Extend the MBTA commuter rail line that cur-rently ends in Lowell, Massachusetts to Concord,New Hampshire, serving towns in the fast-grow-ing suburban regions of southern New Hamp-shire.

• Include Warwick and other Rhode Island townson an extension of the MBTA’s Providence com-muter rail line.

Signs of Progress: Amtrak’s Downeaster

Amtrak’s Downeaster brought passenger railservice back to Maine after a 30-year hiatus.

In 2001, passenger rail service returned toparts of southern New Hampshire andsouthern Maine after a 30-year absence withthe launch of Amtrak’s Downeaster servicebetween Portland and Boston. The state ofMaine laid the groundwork for the restorationof rail with the 1995 creation of the NorthernNew England Passenger Rail Authority, whichmanages and provides funding for theDowneaster service.

While the service has experienced some upsand downs, ridership has been significant andcontinues to grow. In its first year ofoperation, the train collected $1.5 millionmore in fares than anticipated. And ridershipincreased dramatically in 2005 withimprovements that have reduced travel times,and with the rising price of gasoline, whichhas discouraged automobile commuting. InSeptember 2005, the Downeaster reported itssecond-highest ridership ever, with more than30,000 passenger trips. Ridership was up by47 percent over the same month in 2004,with ridership on the Boston to Portland andBoston to Haverhill segments increasing bymore than 80 percent.50

The Downeaster plans to add a fifth roundtriptrain because of the service’s popularity.51

And the state of Maine is consideringextending passenger service beyond Portlandin an effort to build on the initial success ofthe Downeaster.

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority

Shifting Gears 19

• Increase rail service on crowded lines such as theMBTA’s Worcester line. Purchase of the tracks bythe MBTA or the addition of new track may beneeded to accomplish this goal.

• Establish commuter rail service between Spring-field, Massachusetts and Hartford and New Ha-ven, Connecticut.

• Reinstate commuter rail service in the Burlington,Vermont metropolitan area.

Extending commuter rail service does not guaranteereduced emissions from transportation. New rail ser-vice must be well planned or it will foster sprawl thatencourages more driving. Commuter rail is most ef-fective when it serves an existing town, not a brand

The expansion of the Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority (MBTA) commuter railnetwork during the 1990s has paid dividends.Commuter rail ridership on the MBTA doubledbetween 1991 and 2004, with the number ofmiles traveled by commuter rail passengersincreasing to more than 793 million by 2003.52

One of the most successful commuter railexpansion projects was the extension ofcommuter rail service to Worcester in 1994.The route has been so successful that seats arefrequently not available by the time the trainarrives at suburban stations closer to Boston –despite 10 round-trips each day. Ridership isnearly double that anticipated by the MBTAand demand is expected to increase by nearly50 percent by 2010.53

The restoration of commuter rail service has alsohelped lend momentum to the redevelopment ofdowntown Worcester. Worcester’s striking UnionStation – originally built in 1911 – was rescuedfrom two decades of abandonment and decayand now serves as the city’s hub for commuterrail and bus service and also hosts dining andentertainment venues.

The Worcester line could attract even moreusers, but has run into serious capacitylimitations. A lack of funding, coupled withconflicts with the freight railroad that owns thetracks, has made it impossible to add additionalservice. Nonetheless, the expansion of commuterrail service to Worcester has thus far been asuccess and points to the potential benefits ofother rail expansion projects in the region.

new station surrounded by undeveloped land. Anynew development that occurs near a rail station shouldbe transit-oriented development that enables residentsto travel without driving. (See page 32.) Such com-pact growth requires strong planning and zoning prac-tices. (See discussion of land use patterns on page 30.)

Subway and Light RailMany New England communities once had local trol-ley service, and many could be candidates for lightrail service in the future. Today, however, NewEngland’s only urban subway and light rail transit sys-tems are in the Boston area.

Boston’s “T” includes four lines with 63 line milesand 184 stations, and receives heavy use. (The city’s

Signs of Progress: MBTA’s Worcester Commuter Rail Line

The entrance hall of Worcester’s Union Station was refurbished to serve commuter rail passengers afterdecades of decay.

Perry Kroll/istockphoto.com

20 Shifting Gears

fifth line – the “Silver Line” – uses bus rapid transitrather than light rail.) Approximately 400,000 one-way trips are taken on Boston’s trains every day.55

Upgrades to equipment and renovations of existingstations will facilitate some increased use, but expand-ing the reach of the system is vital to boosting rider-ship.

One proposed expansion is to link the “spokes” of theBoston subway system in an “Urban Ring.” The ideaof a circumferential transit link around Boston is agood one, but much depends on how the idea is imple-mented. A permanent light rail line would be neededto achieve the idea’s full potential, while options that

Issues in Focus: Moving Freight by RailMoving more freight by rail rather thanhighway can significantly reduce globalwarming pollution. Shipping one ton offreight by rail rather than by truck requires30 to 90 percent less fuel.57 Modernizingthe freight rail system, investing ininterconnections with other regions, andimproving connections across travel modescan increase the volume of freight that canbe moved by rail.

Passenger trains and freight trains oftenshare stretches of track, particularly forlong-distance trips. Improving the tracks byreplacing older rails or adding a secondparallel track to allow trains to pass eachother can benefit both passenger andfreight operations. Trains can operate athigher speeds, reducing total travel time,or can run more frequently because trainsdo not have to pull over to let one anotherpass.

Freight rail has recently increased invisibility as a regional transportation issue.The I-95 Coalition (a group consisting oftransportation officials from all the AtlanticCoast states) is currently engaged in astudy of the region’s freight and passengerrail infrastructure. New England statesshould remain engaged in this process anddevelop and implement plans to modernizethe region’s freight rail system.

would expand roadway capacity (presumably to al-low better bus service) may fall well short of that po-tential or even make matters worse. In addition, theMBTA should prioritize extension of the Green Lineto Medford and the Blue Line to Lynn, along withthe conversion of the underused Fairmount commuterrail line into higher-quality service on the proposed“Indigo Line.”

Elsewhere in New England, states should begin toconsider what role light rail or other alternatives (suchas the provision of more frequent, subway-style ser-vice along existing rail lines or the construction ofbus rapid transit systems along separate guideways)might play in serving future transportation needs.Light-rail transit has grown in popularity nationwideover the last two decades and could be an importantpart of the transportation system of many medium-sized or large New England cities. In Connecticut,the state should consider increased service on the NewHaven, Danbury and New Canaan branch lines ofMetroNorth.56

Suburb-to-Suburb TransitTraditional “hub-and-spokes” transit systems, such asBoston’s subway system, are designed to serve com-muters who live in a suburb and commute to jobsdowntown. In recent decades, however, jobs have in-creasingly moved to the suburbs, undermining theeffectiveness of traditional urban transit systems. Infact, suburb-to-suburb commutes – in which an em-ployee who resides in a suburb commutes to anothersuburb for work – are now the most common type ofcommute.58

Providing effective transit for these suburb-to-suburbcommuters is challenging. But there are several ex-amples of metropolitan areas that have used novel toolsto reduce the number of single-passenger automobiletrips from these commuters. New England transitagencies and planners should draw on the experiencesof other agencies to develop effective strategies to linkworkers with suburban jobs without increasing single-passenger commuting.

Bus and Rail InfrastructureOne strategy for improving suburb-to-suburb transitis to layer circumferential rail or bus routes over exist-ing hub-and-spokes systems. Connecticut Transit cre-ated one such bus route that traverses the suburbs of

Shifting Gears 21

Hartford and connects suburban employment loca-tions such as shopping malls and office complexes.59

This route has been successful, drawing more ridersthan many of Hartford’s traditional bus routes.60 Amore extensive system would allow commuters to

Commuters often don’t use transit to get towork because it is difficult to get from hometo a transit station or from a transit stationto the workplace. New Jersey has respondedto the problem creatively by launching avariety of shuttle bus services at both endsof the commute.

In 1994, NJ Transit (the statewide transitagency for New Jersey) created the WHEELSprogram, which uses minibuses to taketransit riders to suburban employment sites.Within two years of deployment, monthlyridership had grown to over 15,000passengers.65 At least 10 WHEELS routescontinue in operation to the present.

Community shuttle buses like the one above inMaplewood, New Jersey ferry local residents toand from commuter rail stations, reducing theneed for parking near stations and increasingtransit accessibility.

At the home end of the commute, dozens ofNew Jersey municipalities have createdcommunity shuttle bus or jitney services thatcarry riders from residential neighborhoods totransit stations. The innovative, municipallyrun services began in 1997 when the town ofMaplewood, faced with the need for a

dramatic increase in the number of parkingspaces at its local commuter rail station,launched a jitney service using an old schoolbus. NJ Transit joined the effort byencouraging other nearby communities tolaunch similar services.

With the assistance of $3 million in federalfunding, NJ Transit has awarded 42 minibusesto nearly three dozen communities.Communities pledge to use the minibuses asshuttles during peak periods, but can also usethe buses for other community transportationneeds at their own expense. In addition, NJTransit has used federal Congestion Mitigationand Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to pay for up tohalf the operating expenses of the shuttlebuses for their first three years of operation.66

NJ Transit reports that approximately 22,000riders use the community shuttle buses eachday. All but six of the communities thatoriginally received minibuses through theprogram continue to operate shuttle services,even though more than 40 percent of thosecommunities no longer receive operatingassistance from NJ Transit. Real estate listingsin these communities commonly tout proximityto jitney or shuttle bus services as a majorselling point. And 12 towns are scheduled toreceive shuttle buses in a third round ofvehicle placements to occur by 2007.67

The community shuttles and WHEELS programare not the only efforts in New Jersey to linkcommuters with transit. County governmentsand major institutions such as colleges, majoremployers, and business associations alsooperate shuttle buses to better connect NewJerseyans with the state’s transitinfrastructure.

travel further by bus with ease. Denver, Colorado re-cently approved a large transit plan that calls for ex-panding suburb-to-suburb bus connections andcreating suburban transfer points to facilitate move-ment around the suburban ring.61

Bright Ideas from Elsewhere: Suburban Shuttle Buses in New Jersey

NJ Transit

22 Shifting Gears

Circumferential rail could eventually play a role insolving the problem of suburb-to-suburb commutes.Chicago’s METRA Suburban Transit Access Route(STAR) line – a $1.1 billion project announced inJanuary 2003 and targeted for completion by the mid-2010s – will link Chicago’s suburbs and facilitate sub-urb-to-suburb commutes.62 Circumferential rail is alsobeing considered as an option in Washington, D.C.and cities outside the United States.

As with all other new transportation infrastructure,circumferential rail or other forms of transit shouldbe planned in concert with local land uses to pro-mote more sustainable development patterns and notcontribute to additional sprawl.

Transit ConnectivityAdding bus and rail routes, however, cannot fully ad-dress the challenge of reducing single-car suburb-to-suburb commutes. Because suburban residential andcommercial developments typically have low density,it is difficult to serve commuters in these areas withcentralized pick-up and drop-off locations. Manypotential riders have long walks at each end of theirbus or rail trip, and therefore may opt to continuedriving to work or, at best, to a central park-and-ridelocation.

In many cases, shuttle bus and minibus services canbe used to provide connections between dispersed resi-dential and employment locations and existing tran-sit infrastructure, thus boosting ridership andencouraging commuters to leave their cars at home.

The Greater Attleboro Taunton Regional Transit Au-thority (GATRA) operates a popular shuttle fromWheaton College in Norton to the Mansfield MBTAcommuter rail station. The bus picks up passengersalong the way from a satellite parking lot, shoppingcenter, and a regular bus route. Indicative of the route’spopularity, the 25-car satellite parking lot had 17 carson the first day and filled to capacity within months.Though standard bus service is facing cuts, GATRAis able to operate the feeder shuttle because bothWheaton College and the town of Norton have pro-vided funding.63 Experience with a feeder shuttle inVirginia suggests that that one-third of shuttle riderswill be new rail commuters.64

To date, New England transit agencies have not madea major commitment to small-vehicle shuttle services,

although some private-sector entities have done so.The region should identify locations where shuttle busservices can increase transit use and seek out fundingfrom public and private sources. Developing effectivepartnerships between transit agencies, communities,businesses and social service providers is key to thesuccess of the effort. Community-based shuttle pro-grams – like the successful program in New Jersey(see “Bright Ideas from Elsewhere” on page 21) – maybe a useful model for New England’s cities and townsto consider in linking their residents to transit ser-vices.

Vanpools and CarpoolsVanpools are a central element of suburb-to-suburbcommuting programs for many transit agencies. Toimplement vanpools, transit agencies typically pur-chase passenger vans and lend them to interestedgroups of 5 to 15 commuters. In most systems, costssuch as fuel, maintenance and insurance are coveredby the transit agency, and passengers pay a mileage-based fare for use of the van. Successful vanpool pro-grams are usually accompanied by marketing efforts,often coordinated through employers, to help iden-tify potential vanpool participants.

There are numerous examples of successful vanpoolprograms. Chicago began a vanpool program in 1991that has grown from 172 vanpools in 1995 to 456 in2002.68 As of 1995, 90 percent of vanpool trips werefor suburb-to-suburb commutes, and the vanpool ser-vice recovered more than 100 percent of its operatingcosts.69 King County Metro in the Puget Sound re-gion of Washington operates nearly 700 vanpools –the largest such program in the country.70

Connecticut’s Easy Street® van service is one ofseveral successful vanpool services in New England.

The Rideshare Company

Shifting Gears 23

In New England, several states have taken the lead inimplementing vanpool services. In 2002,Connecticut’s Easy Street® service (which operates inthe Hartford and New London areas) served 3,000commuters with 300 vans.71 Massachusetts’ CARA-VAN service operated 40 vans in 2004, down from apeak of more than 100. The decline is attributed tothe extension of commuter rail service and to thegrowth of suburban employment centers.72 In Maine,on the other hand, carpool and vanpool efforts areexpanding through the Go Maine program, whichcoordinates 10 private and 12 Go Maine vanpoolsand is in the process of doubling that number.73

Many transit agencies have also had success with pro-grams that help bring together potential carpool par-ticipants. The Connecticut Department ofTransportation helps fund three rideshare-matchingprograms, and publishes a statewide list of availablecarpools and vanpools.74 Maine, Massachusetts andNew Hampshire offer statewide rideshare databasesthat allow commuters to identify potential carpoolpartners.75 A number of smaller rideshare programsoperate as well.

Expanding the promotion of existing vanpool andride-matching programs – particularly those servingsuburban worksites – is one way to increase partici-pation and reduce emissions from suburb-to-suburbcommutes. The recent rise in gasoline prices providesan opening for vanpool and ride-matching programsto promote themselves as cost-savers. Other innova-tive strategies, such as the pairing of vanpool servicewith guaranteed rides home (see page 37), can alsomake vanpooling a more attractive alternative to com-muters.

Transit in Smaller Urban AreasWhile transit is often thought of as a big-city phe-nomenon, public transportation also plays a vital rolein many of New England’s smaller urban areas. Thereare 42 transit agencies in New England, from theMBTA, which operates 162 bus routes, to small ruralagencies with just one or two fixed routes.79 Thesebus services carry people to work, to school, and tohealth care appointments. These transit services notonly reduce global warming pollution from trips thatwould otherwise be taken by car (provided that rider-ship is high enough), but they also provide mobility forthe elderly, disabled and others who are unable to drive.

Issues in Focus: Reverse CommutesThe migration of jobs from the central city tothe suburbs has spawned an increase in“reverse commutes” – commutes from citycenters to distant suburbs. Reverse commutersare typically ill-served by transit systems, butnew routes and extended service hours canhelp extend access to transit to these non-traditional commuters.

The Los Angeles area and the Bay Area inCalifornia have been in the forefront of servingreverse commuters. Los Angeles initiated areverse commute bus route in late 2001. Thisroute operates only at peak hours, runningfrom downtown Los Angeles to the suburb ofThousand Oaks in the morning and in thereverse direction in the evening. Weekdayridership averages 1,600 riders.76

Because many reverse commuters are lower-income employees working late-night or early-morning hours in the service industry,traditional transit operating hours often do notmeet their needs. Contra Costa and Marincounties in California extended the hours of abus route that serves primarily low-incomeresidents of Richmond, California who commuteto service sector jobs that do not followtraditional work schedules. Four months afterthe bus began to offer service later at night,ridership on the route had increased by 14.8percent compared to the previous year.77

New England’s premier urban transit system –the MBTA – is notoriously unfriendly tocommuters working late-night hours. The MBTArecently cut its “Night Owl” service, which ranfrom 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. on Friday andSaturday nights. 78 Though the service carriedmany people returning home from socialactivities, it also provided transportation forpeople who work late hours.

Operating successful transit service in smaller urbanand rural areas is challenging. Ridership on fixed routesis lower (reducing revenues from fares) and buses of-ten need to travel farther between destinations. None-theless, bus service can successfully be operated incommunities of any size, and New England has sev-

24 Shifting Gears

eral systems that serve as potential models for small-urban transit.

In western Massachusetts, for example, the PioneerValley Transit Authority (PVTA) provides bus serviceto a large area including Springfield, Northamptonand Amherst. The PVTA provides nearly 10 millionrides annually by buses traveling fixed routes and vanservice available by request to those unable to rideregular buses. Students and faculty at Amherst Col-

lege, Smith College, Mt. Holyoke College, Hamp-shire College and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst ride the bus for free because the schools payan annual fee to cover the cost of bus service.85

Like many transit authorities, PVTA struggles to findadequate funding for both its operating needs andcapital expenses. PVTA receives approximately halfof its operating budget from the state and one-thirdfrom the communities that receive transit services.86

The fee paid by each town is based on how manypassenger miles were traveled in that community andhow much its residents used van service.87 For capitalexpenses, PVTA has relied heavily on federal support.When it needed to replace its entire bus fleet in thelate 1990s, it issued bonds backed by anticipated fed-eral transit funding, an approach that gave the agencyadequate funds up front.88

Transit agencies across New England use a variety ofmethods to boost ridership. Advance Transit, on theVermont-New Hampshire border, offers free rides toall passengers, a benefit it can offer because the townsof Lebanon and Hanover – as well as DartmouthCollege and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Cen-ter – have increased their financial support of the ser-vice.89 South Portland Bus Service in Maine addedmore service on Saturdays, undertook a marketingeffort focused at Southern Maine Community Col-lege students, and made other changes that increasedridership by 14 percent in a single year.90 Other waysto boost ridership include increasing the frequency ofservice and extending the hours of operation.91

The key to the success of these and other small-urbantransit systems in New England is the developmentof effective partnerships among a range of institutionsthat fund and benefit from the service. While stateand federal funding provide the bulk of operationaland capital costs, the participation of additionalfunders – including government agencies concernedwith job training and placement and medical care,colleges, major employers, non-profits and town gov-ernments – frequently makes the difference betweena bare-bones transit system and a vigorous system ca-pable of adequately serving the needs of the commu-nity.

Finding adequate funding will remain a serious ob-stacle. State and federal transportation funding willcontinue to provide the bulk of funding for opera-

Signs of Progress: Rural Transit in VermontAs the most rural state in the nation, Vermontwould not seem a likely candidate for avigorous public transit system. Yet, in manycorners of the state, Vermont communitieshave come up with unique ways to takeadvantage of the benefits of transit.

Green Mountain Express, for example, offersbus transit to the 36,000 residents of largelyrural Bennington County, Vermont.80 The localchapter of the Red Cross began providing on-demand transit service in 1991 to give low-income residents access to medical care, butservice has been expanded to include two fixedroutes within Bennington and four daily (sevendays per week) roundtrips to Manchester forcommuters.81 Demand for transit service isgreat enough that the Red Cross projects theGreen Mountain Express could double itsservice, currently 70,000 rides annually, andstill not meet the community’s needs.82

The Green Mountain Express has found ways tocope with the financial challenges of serving asmall community. The service was started bythe Red Cross and today receives its fundingfrom state and federal sources.83 The servicehas also received assistance from the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) through theCommunity Transportation Association. Toexpand its facilities, the system is seekingsupport from the Federal TransitAdministration’s Bus and Bus Facilitiesdiscretionary funding program and anotherUSDA program that supports rural development.Vermont also allocates some highway funds totransit facility construction.84

Shifting Gears 25

tional and capital costs, so small-urban transit mustreceive adequate prioritization in the transportationplanning and funding process. (See “Funding Transitand Alternatives to Driving,” page 50.) Other publicagencies are potential funders as well. But, as the ex-amples above demonstrate, towns, major employersand non-profits are important partners for local tran-sit agencies seeking to improve service. The success ofsmall-urban transit in many New England commu-nities is a direct result of these local initiatives andstate officials should find ways to encourage and fos-ter similar efforts.

Biking and Pedestrian FacilitiesBiking and walking are zero-emission forms of trans-portation that can be an important component of anystrategy to reduce global warming emissions. Whenroutes are safe and attractive, people are more likelyto walk or bike either to their final destination or to atransit stop. One study has suggested that, under theright conditions, a 10 percent increase in pedestrianamenities – adequate sidewalk space, shop fronts,benches, etc. – can result in a 15 percent decline inmotorized trips.92

A number of New England communities have beensuccessful at encouraging walking and biking by im-proving roadways and sidewalks and by providingbike-friendly infrastructure.

Improving Pedestrian FacilitiesSeemingly minor physical attributes of roadways andsidewalks can have a major impact on a citizen’s deci-sion to walk instead of drive.

Clearly marked crosswalks and traffic islands allowpedestrians to cross busy streets safely. To increase vis-ibility, Cambridge, Massachusetts installed raisedcrosswalks, which have raised the rate at which driv-ers yield to pedestrians from 13 percent to 53 per-cent.93 Medians and traffic islands reduce the numberof lanes pedestrians and cyclists must cross at one time,making travel safer and faster. Crossing a busy roadwithout a median can take 10 times longer than asimilar road with a median.94

Reducing traffic speed makes roads safer for pedestri-ans and bicyclists. Road features that can reduce traf-fic speed include speed bumps, traffic circles, and lane

shifts that break up straightaways.95 New Englandcities and towns ranging in size from Cambridge,Massachusetts to Durham, New Hampshire haveemployed these “traffic calming” measures to reducethe speed of traffic and to make streets safer and morecomfortable for walkers and bicyclists.96

Many cities and towns in New England have takensteps to make their streets more pedestrian-friendlywith wider sidewalks and amenities such as benches,trees, and fountains. Hartford, Connecticut, for ex-ample, revised its construction plans for a major thor-oughfare to make it more pleasant and easier forpedestrians to travel along the road by widening themedian, adding trees, and reducing the number oftraffic lanes. The pedestrian-oriented road also willbe cheaper to build than the originally planned one.97

Littleton, New Hampshire recently initiated a pro-gram to increase pedestrian amenities and make itsstreets safer for pedestrians using $2.7 million in fund-ing from the Federal Highway Administration’s Trans-portation and Community and System Preservation(TCSP) Pilot Program.98 TCSP funding has been usedto implement similar programs in Derby, Connecti-cut, Warren, Rhode Island and Burlington, Ver-mont.99

In addition to designing roads with pedestrians inmind, designing communities according to “SmartGrowth” principles (see page 27) and encouragingcommuters to live near their work (see page 39) canenhance the ability of individuals to walk, rather thandrive, to work, shopping and other destinations.

Improving Bike-Specific FacilitiesJust as improving sidewalks and street crossings canencourage people to walk more, constructing bikelanes and making accommodations for cyclists canincrease the number of people willing to bike. Whilesnow, ice and cold may discourage would-be cyclistson winter days, New England’s weather permits cy-cling for most of the year. The larger obstacle is find-ing safe biking routes and having a secure way to storeor carry a bike when switching to transit.

Bike lanes can be created on city streets or as separatepaths. Research has shown that, for each mile of bikelane added per square mile of city, the percent of com-muters who bike to work increases by 1 percent.100

This seemingly small change can result in a signifi-cant percentage of commuters traveling by bike. Eu-

26 Shifting Gears

gene, Oregon, for example, has created 28 miles ofoff-street paths and 78 miles of on-street lanes, and 8percent of commuters now bike to work.101

In New England, major existing bike paths includethe Minuteman Bikeway, which connects four Bos-ton suburbs to the Alewife subway and bus station;

the Farmington Valley Greenway in central Connecti-cut; and the East Bay bike path in Rhode Island thatconnects Bristol to East Providence.103 Much poten-tial for improvement remains in certain parts of NewEngland. Boston, for example, has been ranked thenation’s worst city for cycling.104

Bicycling can also facilitate the use of public transit ifbike lockers are available in stations or if buses areequipped with bike racks. A transit stop normallydraws riders within a 10-minute walking distance.Because a bicyclist can travel faster and farther than apedestrian, the area served by a transit stop is 10 timeslarger for a cyclist than for a pedestrian.105

However, for cyclists to transfer from bikes to publictransit, they must be able carry their bike on the busor train or store it at the transit stop. Over 40 publicand private transit authorities in New England haveinstalled bike racks on their buses, including the Pio-neer Valley Transit Authority in western Massachu-setts, CT Transit, and the Greater Portland TransitDistrict.106 Transferring from a bike to transit remainsdifficult in Boston, but there have been recent improve-ments. In September 2005, the MBTA announced thatit would equip 250 buses with bicycle racks.107

Funding for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure isavailable from federal, state, and local sources. In ad-dition to the TCSP program mentioned above, otherfederal programs support pedestrian projects that willreduce car trips and connect people to transit.108 Insome states, it is possible to apply state highway fundsto pedestrian and cycling projects. Though Maine,for example, does not allow this use of highway funds,the state does offer funding for landscaping and vi-sual improvements that can make an area more ap-pealing to pedestrians. Other ideas for funding includeimpact fees and assessments in business improvementdistricts.

Signs of Progress: Promoting BicycleCommuting in ProvidenceA unique effort in Providence is working tomake bicycle commuting easier and morecommon in the capital of the Ocean State.Bike Downtown, a partnership between thenon-profit group Groundwork Providence,the city of Providence and the ProvidenceFoundation, has worked for the last fouryears to encourage bicycle commuting inthe city.

Supported with federal CMAQ funds, BikeDowntown works with businesses inProvidence to encourage bicyclecommuting, advocates for improvements inbicycle infrastructure, and works topublicize bicycle commuting through themedia and through special events. Theorganization is poised to launch a newinitiative in which it will subsidize thepurchase of bicycles for downtown workerswho will use them in their commutes.102

Bike lockers, such as the one pictured above outsidea train station in Maryland, can encourage transitpatrons to use bicycles, thus reducing demand forparking and putting transit within pedalingdistance of more commuters.

Shifting Gears 27

Promoting “Smart Growth”

Key Recommendations:• Redevelop urban areas to provide affordable hous-

ing and commercial opportunities.• Adopt zoning and planning policies that ensure

that any newly built communities are designedaccording to “smart growth” principles.

• Encourage transit-oriented development.• Ensure that sprawling developments pay their own

way.

Land-use patterns have significant consequences forhow much people travel and by what means. Com-pact communities with a mix of residential and com-mercial uses allow residents to walk or bicycle tocomplete many of their daily tasks. By contrast, spread-out suburban forms of development, in which landuses are separated, require residents to use cars for vir-tually every trip. Compact development can even helpexpand transit use for longer trips by bringing transitstations within easy walking or biking distance.

“Smart growth” – which can be defined as a strategyfor the efficient use of land and resources – can re-duce the need for the automobile trips that are amongthe leading sources of global warming pollution.

Traditional New England communities often fit thedefinition of “smart growth,” with compact, walkabletown centers in which shops, schools, parks and otheramenities are close at hand (and with densities thatcan be served by transit). But in recent decades, tradi-tional development patterns have often fallen by thewayside as suburban development practices prevalentelsewhere in the country have taken root in New En-gland. Homes have been built in large residential-onlyclusters with no nearby shops, restaurants or publicbuildings. Office parks are isolated rather than beingintegrated into the surrounding community, mean-ing that workers cannot walk to a deli at lunchtime oreasily run errands during their break. Nearly everytrip in many of these communities must be completedin a car.

Better growth patterns are possible. New Englandcommunities can encourage development that mixeshomes, shops, and offices in a more traditional vil-lage center pattern and gives residents more transpor-tation choices. In addition, communities can

redevelop older urban areas by updating homes andconverting empty factories into housing or office spaceto reap the full benefits of historic compact neighbor-hoods that are easily served by transit, driving or walk-ing. And states can revamp their infrastructureplanning and financing policies to encourage thespread of smart growth principles.

Compact DevelopmentCompact development places many destinations ashort distance from each other, allowing people tochoose between different modes of travel. No longeris driving the only option for getting to work, takinga child to school, or going to the grocery store.

The most important benefit of compact developmentis the reduced need for people to drive. People wholive in compact urban areas walk or use transit at twicethe national average rate and drive 25 percent less,thereby reducing global warming pollution.109

Compact development provides additional benefits,such as protecting open space, allowing greater mo-bility to those who cannot drive, such as children andthe elderly, and saving money for families by reduc-ing transportation expenses.

Communities seeking to reduce their global warmingemissions through land use can focus on two areas:redevelopment of existing urban and suburban spaceand growth at the urban edge.

Traditional New England town centers combine avariety of uses within a small, walkable geographicarea, while creating a sense of beauty, dignity andcharacter.

Sydney Deem, istockphoto.com

28 Shifting Gears

Restoring Compact Urban DevelopmentAs New England’s urban economy has shifted awayfrom industry and manufacturing toward service andeducational employment, urban land use has changedalso. Many mills and factories, often in city centers,are no longer in use and have either become vacantor been torn down. City-center homes built for fac-tory workers may have become dilapidated and needto be replaced or renovated. These old buildings andurban sites, located in walkable neighborhoods, canbe redeveloped into attractive homes and businesses.

Challenges to urban redevelopment include poten-tially higher costs for developers due to working in amore constrained space than on the urban fringe, re-luctance from lenders to finance projects that are per-ceived as more complicated, concern that nobody willwant to live in an urban home, and bureaucratichurdles. Redevelopment experiences across New En-gland have shown creative ways to address these chal-lenges.

Local governments can work with majoremployers to ensure housing for employees iswithin walking distance of jobs, thus reducingdaily commuting trips made by car. Universitiesin particular may be eager to providereasonably-priced housing near campus.

Dartmouth College, located in Hanover, NewHampshire, built an infill residential project in2001 within walking distance of downtownHanover and the Dartmouth campus thatshould decrease the need for students and staffto drive.113 The college already owned the 3.9-acre city block, including a single family home,a house subdivided into apartments, a sorority,several multi-unit buildings and tennis courts.Though the area was owned by the college, themultiple lots on the block at South Park andEast Wheelock streets were consolidated intoone large lot. This eliminated problems withrequirements that buildings not be too close tothe edge of the lot or to buildings on adjacentlots. The completed project provides 38 unitsof rental housing, an increase of 22 units, for

Dartmouth faculty and staff in duplexes andlarger multi-unit buildings that are no morethan a 10 minute walk from campus, shoppingand recreational opportunities.

Dartmouth oriented the buildings toward thestreet to keep the buildings consistent withthe neighborhood and used the center of theblock for parking and a common yard. Inkeeping with the project’s proximity to jobsand in an effort to maintain the project’scompact form, Dartmouth sought permission toreduce the amount of parking required at thesite. The college argued that Hanover’s parkingminimums were more suited to a car-centeredsuburban development than to housing thatwould serve residents who could walk to work,but failed to persuade the town to reduce theparking requirement. Further demonstrating thelow traffic demand of compact, walkabledevelopment and lessening the impact on theneighborhood of accommodating moreresidents on the block, Dartmouth reduced thenumber of driveways from five to two.

In Hartford, two non-profit developers and two for-profit developers drew upon a variety of state and fed-eral financing options to convert seven historic butdilapidated apartment buildings into rowhouses andto construct five new residential buildings in the FrogHollow neighborhood, creating a total of 52 units.110

Funding sources included the state’s HistoricHomeownership Tax Credit program that offers taxcredits for rehabilitating historic, owner-occupiedbuildings; Hartford’s gap financing program that helpscover the difference between the cost of rehabilitatinga building and its assessed value after completion; anda loan and grant from Citibank.111 All of the rehabili-tated units sold before the project was complete.112

Other possibilities for infill development include con-verting former shopping malls into new town centerswith offices, shops and post offices, and buildinghomes nearby – such as the Mashpee Commonsproject in Mashpee, Massachusetts.114 Reusing andrefashioning existing buildings can make them more

Signs of Progress: Compact Development in Hanover, New Hampshire

Shifting Gears 29

pedestrian- and transit-friendly, and reduce pressureto build a more car-centered project on open spacefarther from the city center.

A frequent concern regarding infill development orreusing old buildings in New England is worry aboutchemical contamination of the site caused by decadesof industrial and commercial activity. While suchproblems do occur and pollution is of real concern,often the contamination can be cleaned up so thatthe site can be fully reused. Federal grants may beavailable to offset the cost of investigating and cleanup a potentially contaminated site, also known as abrownfield.

Beginning with only a small amount of federal fund-ing, Lowell, Massachusetts converted two empty light-industrial buildings into urban housing andcommercial space. The city spent $3,000 of a federalgrant to test the two buildings for contamination.Confirmed contamination included asbestos, oil lu-bricant, and a 50-gallon drum of a carcinogenic chemi-cal. A private developer paid the city for the right toclean up and develop the properties, converting theminto a café and gallery and 49 lofts, nearly all of whichsold before the building was complete. Residents ofthe buildings are within walking distance of Lowell’scity hall, or can ride a shuttle to connect to an MBTAcommuter rail line.115 In addition to creating walkableurban residences out of an empty industrial building,the city of Lowell raised its tax revenue by $300,000to $400,000 annually.116

State government can take additional steps to pro-mote the redevelopment of brownfields by reducingsome of the risks of such projects. Cleaning up abrownfield can add significant cost to a redevelop-ment project because of testing and remediation ex-penses and possible project delays if the site provesmore difficult to clean than expected. Financial sup-port from the state can help offset some of these ex-penses. The state of Connecticut offers grants (ratherthan loans) and funding based on future tax paymentsto developers working at brownfield sites, and alsoseeks repayment from the party responsible for thecontamination.117 Massachusetts offers tax credits forbrownfield site cleanup and redevelopment.118

Promoting Compact Development inSuburbiaUnlike in urbanized areas, where there is little openland and undeveloped parcels are costly, land at theedge of town is relatively inexpensive and thus costdoes not push developers to build compact projects.As a result, development that occurs at the edge ofexisting cities and towns often is spread out and notconducive to walking, biking or transit. However,communities can take steps to ensure that new homesand businesses built on “greenfields” outside the ur-ban or village center are built in a way that is pedes-trian and transit friendly.

Comprehensive plans and zoning are important com-ponents of ensuring new development is compact.Zoning should be driven by a comprehensive plan,which gives local government the opportunity to en-gage residents in creating a vision of what they wantthe community to look like in 10 or 20 years. Often,residents realize that they want to emulate the time-tested development pattern of their town’s village cen-ter – a neighborhood of stores, public buildings andhomes, all reachable on foot, by transit and by car.Following historic growth patterns offers a way topromote economic growth without undermining atown’s character.

However, creating a comprehensive plan with this vi-sion does not guarantee that a community will en-courage more compact development. Thecomprehensive plan must be supported by zoning lawsthat encourage compact development, allow mixedresidential and commercial uses, and enable residents

Old millbuildings, suchas this formerchocolatefactory inBoston, havebeenrefurbishedintocommercialandresidentialspace in manyNew Englandcities andtowns.

30 Shifting Gears

to travel without having to drive. Every New Englandstate except Massachusetts requires that zoning lawsbe consistent with a town’s comprehensive plan, butonly Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont have anymechanism for verifying that this requirement ismet.119 Too often, zoning laws prevent the type ofdevelopment necessary to turn the comprehensive planinto reality and instead allow growth that underminesa community’s traditional character.

Good zoning and related land-use policies (such assubdivision regulations) can direct growth to where itis wanted, create pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods,and reduce how much residents need to drive. Thefollowing guidelines can help communities create thevision of compact, traditional development identifiedin the comprehensive plan:120

• Allow mixed-use development, both vertically andhorizontally. Permitted uses should include:

▲ Retail on the first floor of a building and resi-dences or offices on the higher floors.

▲ Commercial activity, which includes shops,offices, day care centers, and other quiet uses,adjacent to residential buildings.

• Create small lots in areas targeted for develop-ment and ensure the maximum use of those lotsby:

▲ Allowing owners to build to the edge of thelot in commercial areas, so that stores are sideby side and there is no space lost between them.

▲ Establishing a maximum, not minimum, set-back from the street.

▲ Increasing the number of residential units thatmay be built on a single lot.

• Limit development where it is not wanted by:▲ Establishing large minimum lot sizes (30-50

acres, not 5 acres) in rural areas to protect farm-ing uses and open space.

▲ Requiring homes be clustered together (ratherthan each centered in the middle of its lot),thus preserving open space nearby.

▲ Creating “transfer of development rights” pro-grams in which landowners in rural areas cansell their development rights to developers orothers who wish to build at greater density inareas targeted for development.

• Ensure development is accessible to pedestriansby:

▲ Requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street.▲ Creating small blocks that are scaled to pedes-

trian use.▲ Connecting all streets on each end rather than

allowing cul-de-sacs that greatly increase howfar a person must walk to reach relativelynearby buildings.

▲ Designing streets to control traffic speeds andallow pedestrians to cross streets safely.

▲ Building parking lots behind buildings insteadof in front of them, where they interfere withpedestrian access.

• Tailor parking requirements to devote as littlevaluable land as possible to parking by:

▲ Allowing the use of shared parking, for exampleby shoppers during the day and by residents atnight.

▲ Encouraging developers to participate in pro-grams that reduce driving, including efforts topromote transit use, help employers organizecarpools and encourage telecommuting.

▲ For downtown areas accessible by transit or onfoot, change minimum parking requirementsto parking maximums and require that park-ing spaces be set aside for shared cars.

The above list is far from exhaustive, but such poli-cies and practices are becoming increasingly commonin New England. Stowe, Vermont has highlighted se-lect areas for pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use projectsand designated other areas for far less growth. To en-

Compact residential developments, like the oneabove in Stowe, Vermont, can maintain the styleand flavor of traditional New England villageliving.

Retrovest Companies

Shifting Gears 31

courage the creation of new village centers, Amherst,Massachusetts has adopted zoning to support com-pact, mixed uses in selected areas of town.121

The Palisade Street development in Stowe, Vermontprovides an example of new compact housing thatblends in with the existing village and of how zoningregulations influence the shape of projects. The townof Stowe has zoned the areas near its downtown fordevelopment and to allow mixed uses.123 However,building a compact, walkable mix of homes and busi-nesses near downtown required the developer to seekseveral exemptions from Stowe’s zoning laws.

First, the developer sought a waiver to Stowe’s require-ment for how far each building must be from the edgeof its lot. Building homes closer to the lot line canallow more compact development. In addition, thedeveloper requested and received permission to re-

duce the minimum lot size. Further, the project quali-fied for a requested parking reduction by allowingshared parking between commercial and residentialusers.124 The completed project includes both com-mercial space and residential units, all of which havesold out.125

More so in New England than in other areas of thenation, comprehensive plans and zoning laws thatsupport smart growth are the responsibility of towns.New England’s strong home rule tradition allowsmunicipalities to govern themselves in any way notprohibited by state or federal law and often curbs thepower of state government to direct changes to land-use practices. As a result, though every New Englandstate requires towns to develop a comprehensive plan(at least if the town wants to adopt any zoning laws),communities may establish a comprehensive plan and

Land-use and transportation planning areintegrally related. To achieve the goal of atransportation system that produces fewerglobal warming emissions, transportation andland-use plans must be closely aligned witheach other and be at least reasonablyconsistent across city and town boundaries.

In New England, however, the power to planfor future land use and infrastructure needs isdispersed among hundreds of autonomouslocal governments. Transportation planning iscarried out at both the local and regionallevels. Regional planning organizations andcouncils of governments have been formed inmany parts of New England to helpcommunities plan appropriately and, in somecases, to develop regional plans. But regionalbodies have little to no power to compelindividual towns to carry out the details of aregional plan and state governments havetraditionally been reluctant to impinge onlocal authority over land use.

New England’s unique home rule tradition hasmany benefits. Local citizens are more likelyto become engaged in planning discussions atthe local level and municipal planning can

help individual towns preserve their uniquecharacter. But other states and metropolitanareas have benefited from strong regionalplanning authority. For the past two and a halfdecades, for example, Portland, Oregon’s electedregional government (called Metro) has devisedand implemented both regional land-use plansand regional transportation plans. Metro’sconsistent and strong focus on compact,transit-oriented development has achievedresults, contributing to the 13 percentreduction in per-capita carbon dioxideemissions in Portland and its surroundingcounty since 1993.122

To be successful in reducing global warmingemissions from transportation, New Englandmust arrive at a similar focused vision for futuredevelopment. Creation of powerful regionalgovernments or planning organizations may ormay not be practical or desirable in NewEngland. But the region’s leaders do need tofind creative ways to balance the ethic ofcitizen control and self-determination inherentin local planning with the synergies created byharnessing the region’s intellectual and publicresources behind a regional vision forsustainable development.

Issues in Focus: Regional Planning in New England

32 Shifting Gears

Table 1. Building a Mix of Homes, Stores, and Offices Near Transit Reduces Driving130

Mode Share

Capita Household

Good Transit and Mixed Use 58% 27% 12% 2% 2% 9.80 0.93

Good Transit Only 74% 15% 8% 1% 1% 13.28 1.50

zoning laws that do nothing to promote compact de-velopment.

In the absence of increased authority to direct land-use policy, state governments in New England are lim-ited to voluntary approaches and the use of stateinfrastructure funding to encourage smart growth. (Seepage 34.) Rhode Island, for example, tries to steer com-prehensive plans toward pedestrian- and transit-friendly compact growth by providing detailedsuggestions for communities on how to shape the com-prehensive plan. The state urges communities to en-courage compact, mixed-use development and createnew village centers, revitalize cities, and controlsprawl.126

Transit-Oriented DevelopmentWhile compact development is an important step,compact development that is explicitly focused aroundtransit is even more effective. Transit-oriented devel-opment (TOD) is characterized by residential unitsalongside or above stores, restaurants and offices, anda design that allows residents easy access to transit.TOD offers an attractive alternative to sprawling resi-dential suburbs and malls that are accessible only bycar. TOD also expands the range of housing, servicesand jobs that are easily accessible to lower income resi-dents, the elderly, the disabled or others who are de-pendent on transit.

Not all development near transit qualifies as transit-oriented development. Too often, homes and officesnear transit offer no pedestrian link to transit and aremerely transit-adjacent rather than transit-oriented.

TOD can reduce driving in two ways. First, manyresidents of a transit-oriented development will livewithin walking distance of rail transit and will walkto the train to commute to work or to go shopping.

Second, and perhaps more significant, is the effect ofcommercial development around a rail stop. Most cartrips are not just for commuting but for completingerrands on the way to or from work.128 A survey ofpeople’s travel choices in Portland, Oregon demon-strates the impact of building homes, stores, and of-fices within walking distance of transit stations. Peoplein neighborhoods with this mix of uses near transitdrove 26 percent less compared to those near transitlocations without this varied development.129 (SeeTable 1.)

Issues in Focus: Compact Developmentand Affordable HousingZoning laws that encourage compactdevelopment have an additional benefit:they make housing more affordable. A studyby Fleet Bank and the Rhode Island PublicExpenditure Council found that in RhodeIsland, purchasing and finishing landaccounts for 45 percent of the cost of a newhome. Labor and materials for constructinga home represent 52 percent of the totalcost. 127

Zoning regulations typical of many suburbancommunities establish a large minimum lotsize for new homes. Adjusting zoningrequirements to allow smaller lot sizes inareas targeted for new development (neartransit stations, for example) can encouragethe development of more affordablehousing, allow for walking and transit useto supplant driving, and lead to thecreation of more attractive and sustainablecommunities.

Autos perVMT perAuto Walk Transit Bike OtherArea Characteristics

Shifting Gears 33

Making TOD HappenAcross New England, numerous transit-oriented de-velopments have evolved, such as around Somerville,Massachusetts’ Davis Square. (See “Signs of Progress”above.) More recently, new transit-oriented develop-ments have begun, such as at the Holbrook/Randolphstop on the Middleborough commuter rail line inMassachusetts. Tremendous potential for further TOD– and reduced driving – remains.

Canton, Massachusetts has undertaken a downtownrevitalization that doubles as transit-oriented devel-opment. A town of 20,000 connected to Boston viathe MBTA Attleboro commuter rail line, Canton re-vised its zoning laws affecting downtown in 2000. Thetown decided to encourage dense housing in down-town – unusual in Massachusetts, where towns usu-ally are reluctant to mix residential and commercialactivity – and reduced parking requirements to onespace per residence. With the rail station nearby,Canton’s planners assumed that many downtown resi-dents would commute to work by train.133

In response to these zoning changes, developers haveconstructed more than 100 condos and other resi-dential units above and behind new shops and res-taurants. Additional housing has also been constructeddowntown within walking distance of the commuterrail station.134

Malden, Massachusetts is beginning to overhaul thearea surrounding its subway and commuter rail sta-tion. Malden has already overcome some hurdles toTOD, such as general reluctance to embrace com-pact development or mixed uses; it recently revisedzoning laws to allow more apartments downtown,including taller apartment buildings.135 Now, Malden’schallenge is to draw more activity to the area surround-ing the rail station. The city will reopen Pleasant Street,closed in the 1970s to allow construction of city of-fices on the site, to create a shopping district. In placeof government offices, a developer will construct hous-ing, office space, and ground floor retail. Also nearthe rail station are two more apartment complexes, aparking garage, and a new YMCA.136

Signs of Progress: Transit-OrientedDevelopment in Somerville,MassachusettsDavis Square – long the commercial center ofSomerville, Massachusetts, near Boston – hadfallen upon hard times by the 1970s. Duringthe decade of the 1970s, Somerville lost 2,000jobs and 13 percent of its residents, and DavisSquare lost many of its businesses.131 In 1970,the MBTA began planning for an extension ofthe Red Line subway to nearby Arlington. Theinitial proposals had the line bypassingSomerville altogether.

Local leaders launched a successful campaignto reroute the new line through Davis Square,and then to revitalize the square around thenew station. Bucking the urban developmenttrends of the time, local officials, residentsand businesses developed a comprehensiveplan for redevelopment of the square thatlimited parking for the new station,implemented traffic calming measures andimproved amenities to make the square more

Once in steep decline, Somerville’s Davis Squarehas been transformed into a vibrant town centerdistrict thanks to effective planning centeredaround transit-oriented development.

friendly to pedestrians, and created new parksand bike paths in and around the square.132

The planners’ foresight paid off. Today, DavisSquare is a vibrant neighborhood center withtheaters, restaurants, new commercialbuildings and housing. And the number oftransit riders boarding at Davis Square is morethan triple original projections.

34 Shifting Gears

Massachusetts’ TOD program offers financial assis-tance to communities seeking to redevelop urbanizedareas, keep development compact, and offer residentstransportation choices. Funding can be spent on hous-ing, pedestrian and biking facilities, and parkingwithin one-quarter mile of a transit station. In theprogram’s first year, $30 million will be available tolocal governments, public agencies, non-profit orga-nizations, and private developers to build compact,walkable projects.137 Separately, the MBTA is evalu-ating its surplus properties to identify those with TODpotential.

Infrastructure Fundingand Impact FeesEvery development is served by public infrastructure– from roads and sewer systems to schools, parks andlibraries – that must be expanded or newly built atsignificant cost. What public services are provided andhow much of the cost is covered with public fundscan influence growth patterns. Both state and localgovernments can use their financial power to promotepedestrian- and transit-supportive development thatreduces global warming emissions from commuting.Given that home rule – which limits how much stategovernments can influence local decisions, includingland use practices – remains strong in New England,state governments may find that one of the most im-mediate tools they have available to encourage com-pact development is to prioritize giving grants andfinancial incentives to communities that have devel-oped strong land use policies.

Infrastructure FundingInfrastructure projects are costly, and thus public fund-ing is important. The cost of a lane-mile of new high-way in a previously undeveloped area can be as highas $500,000.138 A new high school, necessary becausestudents live in new homes too far from existingschools, can cost an estimated $30 million (includinginterest payments).139 One study has found that totalpublic infrastructure costs per unit can be as much asnine times higher for a single home built on four acrescompared to 30 units built on a single acre.140 Thoughthese expenses are often paid for by developers or lo-cal governments, state government also provides somesupport. State governments can influence growth pat-terns by limiting which of these infrastructure im-provements they will pay for.

One policy option is for government to prioritize thoseprojects that are located within walking distance of avillage center or are dense enough to be easily servedby transit. For example, Vermont stipulates that thestate will not provide financial support for roads,buildings or other infrastructure unless the projectcomplies with state planning goals – such as protect-ing rural areas and steering growth toward existingtown centers – and with local growth plans.141 In2000, Maine adopted a law that gives preferentialtreatment in awarding select state grants to commu-nities that have adopted comprehensive growthplans.142 The Maine Municipal Investment TrustFund, for example, operates under these guidelines.Towns may request state funding for projects such asdowntown improvements, transportation enhance-ments, or sewer and water upgrades. The state priori-tizes the applications of communities that haveadopted a local growth management program or havecreated a plan to focus growth in designated areas.143

In addition, states should consider how investmentsin public infrastructure promote or detract from sus-tainable development. Many states, for example, haveminimum acreage requirements for schools that vir-tually dictate that new schools are built away fromtown centers in areas where walking or bicycling toschool is next to impossible. Funding policies can alsobias school building decisions toward the creation oflarge schools that require expensive bus networks ortoward the construction of new schools where reno-vation of existing school buildings could serve stu-dent needs. States should ensure that their schoolconstruction policies – as well as decisions regardingthe location of state office buildings and other publicfacilities – align with smart growth principles.

Impact FeesA second fiscal policy that state or local governmentscan use is to assess impact fees, a one-time charge lev-ied on new development to pay its share of infrastruc-ture expenses needed to support those new homes andbusinesses. Because the infrastructure needs of sprawl-ing development are so much greater than for com-pact or infill development – costing about 20 percentmore for utilities (such as water and sewer lines) and25 percent more for roads – location-sensitive feesshould be higher for spread-out development.144 Af-fordable housing projects and other socially desirabledevelopments can be exempted from fees altogether.

Shifting Gears 35

By incorporating public infrastructure expenses intoprivate development decisions, impact fees can help tomake compact growth more attractive to developers.

The infrastructure needs of sprawling devel-opment are much greater than for compactor infill development – costing about 20 per-cent more for utilities and 25 percent morefor roads.

Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and NewHampshire allow communities to collect impact fees,and a number of towns in each state assess fees, par-ticularly for school construction costs. Few, if any,however, have tailored their fees to account for thereduced infrastructure costs of more compact devel-opment.

Reducing Single-Passenger

Automobile Commuting

Key Recommendations:• Require, and provide state support for, employer-

based commute-trip reduction programs.• Encourage commuters to live near their places of

work or to live near mass transit.

More than one out of every four miles driven in a carin the United States is traveled on the way to or fromwork.147 In addition to being the largest source ofvehicle travel, commuting behaviors also help to dic-tate how, where and by what mode of travel peoplecomplete other daily tasks. Thus, finding ways to en-courage low-emission commuting choices is a keycomponent in an overall strategy to reduce carbondioxide emissions from transportation.

Numerous policy tools discussed elsewhere in thisdocument can reduce emissions from commuting,including the expansion of transit and other trans-portation alternatives (page 17) and adoption of smartgrowth principles for development (page 27). But ad-ditional efforts focused specifically on commuting canalso play a major role, as with employer-based com-mute trip reduction programs and programs to en-courage workers to live near their place ofemployment. Both strategies rely on strong public-private partnerships to produce results that benefitcommuters, businesses and the environment.

Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)ProgramsEmployers are in a unique position to help reduceglobal warming pollution from the transportation sec-tor, given that a large percentage of driving involves

Signs of Progress: Making CompactDevelopment More Attractive in MaineA serious obstacle to compact growth insmaller towns throughout New England is theabsence of a sewer system. In a communitywithout a central sewage facility, new homesare served by individual septic systems,which generally require relatively large lotsfor the drain field.145 This means that homescannot be built close enough together tocreate a walkable community.

Maine has recently begun to address theproblem by attempting to reduce the cost totowns of extending sewer lines to newhomes and building new sewage treatmentplants in areas anticipating significantgrowth. In Maine, where roughly half of the

state’s residents rely on septic systems, thestate has begun to address this challenge byoffering extended loans from the state’s CleanWater Revolving Fund for sewer lineconstruction to developments of 250-350 newhomes in a “village” pattern that allowsresidents to walk to the store and schools.146

Several developers have proposed projectsthat qualified for this funding, but none ofthe projects have been built due to otherobstacles.

In addition, Maine is considering new tools toease the creation of decentralized sewerdistricts that would allow communities tobuild community septic systems that wouldaccommodate more compact development intown center areas.

36 Shifting Gears

commuting to and from work. Because of this, manybusinesses and other employers help their employeesreduce vehicle travel through commute trip reduc-tion (CTR) programs.

A CTR program benefits both employees and em-ployers. A comprehensive program can reduce peak-period automobile trips by up to 20 percent at aworksite, meaning less traffic congestion, less air pol-lution, and less gasoline consumption.148 Also, help-ing employees find better transportation options canreduce travel time and stress. This increases produc-tivity and morale, and reduces turnover rates.

Many state and local governments, both in New En-gland and nationwide, have taken steps to encourageor require CTR programs. These initiatives are mostsuccessful when they give businesses the supportneeded to make setting up a program easy.

Elements of a Good ProgramIt is important for any commute trip reduction pro-gram to be flexible to employees’ needs, and to give asmany positive incentives for alternatives to drive-alonecommuting as possible. There are dozens of possibleelements for a program, and because each worksite isunique, no one program is appropriate for all em-ployers.

In 2005 and 2006, the New England ClimateCoalition issued a series of reports examiningthe global warming impact of commutingpatterns in the six New England states.Among the studies’ key findings are thefollowing:

• Global warming emissions from com-muting vary greatly from town to town:In Massachusetts, for example, theaverage commuter in portions of theSouth Shore produces seven times morecarbon dioxide per year as the averagecommuter living in Boston’s urban core.

• Fast-growing “exurbs” produce highlevels of emissions: The growth of“exurban” development in formerly ruralregions threatens further increases inemissions in the years to come. Workersliving in these towns face long commutesthat are unlikely to be completed viatransit.

• Living near work can significantlyreduce emissions: In states such as NewHampshire, nearly one-fifth of all com-mute-related carbon dioxide emissions arecaused by the small fraction of commuterswho travel more than 30 miles to work.

• Compact residential development,transit use and non-motorized com-mutes all lead to lower emissions.

Fig. 8. Per-Worker Commuting CarbonDioxide Emissions by Place of

Residence, 2000

To read the studies, visit the NewEngland Climate Coalition’s Web site,www.newenglandclimate.org.

Issues in Focus: The Contribution of Commuting to Global Warming

Shifting Gears 37

However, there are several elements that should ap-pear in most worksites’ programs. For example:

• Assisting with rideshare/carpool matching.

• Offering a monthly transit or vanpool subsidy.

• Providing preferential parking to carpools andvanpools.

• Providing secure bike parking/storage locationsand changing facilities.

• Providing shuttles to nearby transit stations.

• Encouraging and facilitating telecommuting.

• Allowing flexible work schedules that allow work-ers to commute fewer days of the week.

• Allowing employees to “cash out” the value ofemployer-provided parking. (See page 45.)

• Ensuring access to a guaranteed emergency ridehome. (See “Issues in Focus,” this page.)

• Reimbursing bicycle and transit mileage for busi-ness trips when these modes are comparable inspeed to driving, rather than only reimbursingautomobile mileage.

Employers should also keep information on commuterbenefits in one place, designate one person as the cen-tral point of contact, and actively promote the ben-efits offered. Also, it often makes sense for smallemployers to band together, especially when locatedtogether in a commercial mall or industrial park, andform a transportation management association. Thiscan allow them to establish a CTR program compa-rable to a large business.

Encouraging Employers to Develop CTRProgramsThe most important part of any government effort toencourage CTR programs, whether through a volun-tary or a mandatory program, is to create a partner-ship with the businesses involved. Governmentagencies should engage employers in planning andmarketing CTR programs, keep program possibili-ties flexible, and give employers the tools they need

to maximize benefits for both employees and busi-ness overall.

Commute Trip Reduction in New EnglandCurrently, Massachusetts is the only state in NewEngland to require employer-based CTR programs,though other states sponsor or support various orga-nizations to facilitate voluntary programs. MakingCTR programs mandatory would expand their reach,though it must be done in a way that gets employersinvested in the actual results.

The Massachusetts Department of EnvironmentalProtection has established a “Rideshare Regulation,”which requires employer-based CTR programs in away similar to Washington’s CTR law.156 The regula-tion requires large businesses and educational institu-tions to develop plans for reducing drive-alonecommutes by 25 percent, including elements such ascarpool matching and bicycling incentives.

Other New England states support voluntary com-mute trip reduction efforts. For example, Rideworkshas been helping employers and individual commut-ers in south-central Connecticut drive less for about20 years; the program removes an estimated 3,640

Issues in Focus: Guaranteed Ride HomeCommuters are often discouraged fromusing transit or carpooling to work becauseof the prospect that they will be strandedin case of a family emergency or if theirwork schedule suddenly changes.

To replace the “safety net” provided by apersonal automobile, some transit agenciesand employers have created “guaranteedride home” programs. A guaranteed ridehome program can address this problem bypaying for an employee to take a taxi, usea company car, or even rent a car. Aguaranteed ride home is a critical part ofcommute-trip reduction programs becauseit helps commuters take full advantage ofalternative transportation options.Sometimes a state agency or non-profitorganization will offer it on a regionalbasis.

38 Shifting Gears

The state of Washington operates one of thenation’s most successful commute tripreduction programs. Launched in 1991, theprogram has succeeded because it combines agovernment mandate with ample assistance toemployers and the creation of newpartnerships between the state’s Departmentof Transportation, local governments andemployers.

The state’s commute trip reduction lawrequires the development of a CTR strategy byall employers with 100 or more full-timeemployees at a single worksite in the state’snine most populated counties. Over 1,100worksites currently participate, includingabout 100 worksites that participatevoluntarily.149 In addition to designating atransportation coordinator and supplyinginformation to employees about commutingoptions, employers must develop a CTRprogram designed to reduce vehicle-milestraveled and drive-alone commuting, andmake a good-faith effort to implement theprogram.150 Additionally, employers must

report annually to their county or city, andsurvey their employees every two years todetermine the program’s progress.

Participation in Washington’s program iswidespread because it is mandatory for largecompanies, but its effectiveness hinges onthe partnerships it has created.Implementation of the program is overseen bya 28-member CTR Task Force, containingrepresentatives of major employers, cities andcounties, state agencies and citizens.However, the program is actually administeredthrough local jurisdictions (cities andcounties), and this decentralization allowsbusinesses a great deal of flexibility.

The stated goal of Washington’s CTR programis three-fold: reduce traffic congestion, reduceair pollution, and reduce oil consumption byreducing the number of commute trips madeby people driving alone.151 Judged againstthese goals, the program has been successful:

• The program has reduced traffic conges-tion. Statewide, the program removes over20,000 vehicles from roadways every morn-ing; if these cars were put back on the road,overall per-vehicle traffic delay would in-crease by 6.3 percent in the Puget Soundregion.152 Employees at CTR worksites areless likely to drive to work alone comparedto the statewide average, and Washingtonis one of only two states in which the pro-portion of people who drive to work alonedecreased from 1990 to 2000; nationwide,the rate increased 3.4 percent.153

• These changes in driving patterns have re-duced air pollution by thousands of tons.154

• It has also meant reduced oil consump-tion. Based on how many fewer miles aredriven by employees commuting to CTRworksites, the program has resulted in $10million in fuel savings.155

Bright Ideas from Elsewhere: Washington State’s Commute Trip Reduction Program

King County Department of Transportation

The Seattle metropolitan area has one of thenation’s strongest vanpool programs, in largepart due to the active participation ofemployers in the region’s commute tripreduction program.

Shifting Gears 39

cars from the road each day, and resulted in 45.3 mil-lion fewer vehicle miles traveled last year.157 In otherparts of Connecticut, two other non-profit compa-nies (Metropool and Rideshare) perform similar func-tions.158

Other states have followed similar paths, with orga-nizations like Go Maine (sponsored by the MaineDepartment of Transportation and the Maine Turn-pike Authority) and Vermont Rideshare (part of theVermont Agency of Transportation).162 These pro-grams provide carpool matching, transit information,and a guaranteed ride home option.

Government initiatives to encourage CTR programsare strongest when they provide benefits both to com-muters and to businesses themselves. Businesses thatget the support they need, receive good publicity, andsee real benefits in terms of reduced employee stressand increased retention are more likely to make a goodfaith effort to establish a CTR program.

State and local government officials should pursuepolicies that encourage employers to create CTR pro-grams. Mandatory regulations will have a much widerreach, but, regardless of whether the programs aremandatory or voluntary, states should provide em-ployers with the tools and resources they need to makethe programs successful.

Live Near Work/Live Near TransitProgramsAnother series of approaches to reducing carbon di-oxide emissions from commuting is to reduce thelength of the commute itself or to encourage workersto choose homes in close proximity to transit. A vari-ety of innovative policies have been designed to en-courage workers to make choices that reduce theimpact of their commutes on the climate.

“Live near your work” programs were pioneered inMaryland in 1997 and later spread to Delaware. (TheMaryland program was discontinued amid a statebudget crunch in 2003, but the city of Baltimore hascontinued the program on a local basis.) The pro-gram provides cash grants to employees purchasing ahome in a certain geographic zone near their place ofemployment (the grants are typically used to defraydown payment or closing costs on a new home). TheMaryland program provided grants of up to $3,000

Signs of Progress: Best Workplaces forCommuters in the Upper ConnecticutRiver Valley

To recognize businesses that offercommuting choices to their workers, theU.S. Department of EnvironmentalProtection and U.S. Department ofTransportation operate the “Best Workplacesfor Commuters” program. Companies thatprovide commuting benefits meeting theprogram’s standards are permitted topromote themselves using the “BestWorkplaces for Commuters” name and logo,providing a public relations benefit.To qualify for recognition, companies mustprovide one primary commuting benefit –either a transit subsidy, vanpool subsidy,telecommuting option, or parking cash-out– as well as three supporting benefits, suchas rideshare matching, shuttle bus service,or bicycle facilities. Companies must alsoprovide an emergency ride home service andattain a goal of having at least 14 percentof workers not drive alone to work.

Thus far, 130 New England workplaces, withmore than 170,000 employees, havequalified for the “Best Workplaces forCommuters” designation.159 But the UpperValley region of New Hampshire and Vermonthas gone one step further, becoming thefirst area in New England – and one of only19 in the country – to achieve designationas a “Best Workplaces for Commuters”district, offering commuter benefits to morethan 16,000 employees in the region.160 TheUpper Valley is also the only predominantlyrural area in the nation to achieve “BestWorkplaces for Commuters” status.

Through Upper Valley Rideshare, a project ofAdvance Transit funded by the Vermont andNew Hampshire transportation departments,workers and employers in the area areeligible for a variety of transportationservices, including rideshare matching, freebus service, commuter shuttles, and aguaranteed ride home program.161

40 Shifting Gears

for homebuyers through a three-way match by thestate government, the local government and the em-ployer.163 In the six years in which the Maryland pro-gram was in operation, grants were made to nearly1,000 recipients.164

In addition to reducing the length of commutes, “livenear your work” programs can also promote urbanresidential redevelopment by encouraging workers tolive in urban neighborhoods close to major centers of

Signs of Progress: Location-EfficientMortgages in MassachusettsIn Massachusetts, the Massachusetts HousingFinance Authority (MassHousing) and theMBTA created the “Take the T Home”mortgage program, which enables low- andmoderate-income residents to purchasehousing near transit with little or no moneydown. Purchasers can also qualify for largermortgages than they could otherwise affordby factoring in their reduced transportationexpenses. Home purchasers must demonstratethat they are regular users of transit.166 Theprogram is also available to transit riders inWorcester and the Pioneer Valley and toparticipants in the Zipcar car-sharing service.

Since the inception of the program, morethan 150 loans have been made to borrowers,totaling $38.2 million. The program has beenmore successful in providing loans in themetro Boston area than it has been in theless-transit oriented areas of central andwestern Massachusetts.167

The “Take the T Home” mortgage program isjust one example of a “location-efficientmortgage” (LEM). The idea behind the LEM isthat homeowners in densely populated areaswith greater access to transit devote asmaller share of their household income totransportation expenses. As a result, theycan devote a greater share of their income tohousing than traditional income eligibilityformulas allow. This, in turn, allowsconsumers to qualify to purchase housing thatthey would otherwise not be able to afford.

employment, which, in turn, can spur further resi-dential redevelopment in urban areas.

Similarly, states, local governments and transit agen-cies can create programs that encourage workers tolive near transit. Among the most innovative ap-proaches to “live near transit” is the creation of part-nerships with lenders to offer a variation of the“location-efficient mortgage.”165 (See “Signs ofProgress,” this page.)

Reallocating the Costs

of Driving

Key Recommendations:• Reform automobile insurance policies to calculate

premiums based on vehicle travel and vehicle-based risk.

• Create parity between subsidies for parking andthe use of transit or other alternatives.

• Eliminate other subsidies for automobile use, in-cluding mandated parking subsidies.

An individual’s decision to drive or not to drive shouldideally be based on the costs of that behavior – andthose costs should ideally represent the “true” cost ofdriving, including the costs inflicted on the environ-ment and other members of society. However, driv-ing is a heavily subsidized behavior – both directlyby governments (through road maintenance, polic-ing and other expenses) and indirectly through gov-ernment mandates (for example, excessive parkingrequirements).

In addition, the current allocation of costs among thevarious aspects of driving (car purchase, maintenance,insurance, fuel, etc.) tilts heavily toward fixed charges– those that are required simply to own a vehicle. Inother words, it often costs a great deal to have a ve-hicle, but very little to drive it. The result is that, oncea vehicle has been purchased, an individual has in-centive to use it for as many daily tasks as practicableand not to leave it parked in the driveway.

There are numerous ways to reallocate the costs ofdriving in such a way that drivers pay their fair shareof the societal costs of operating a vehicle and thatmore of those costs are charged by the mile. The rec-ommendations in this chapter assume that the over-all costs of operating vehicles are held constant – that

Shifting Gears 41

is, that existing costs are merely reallocated. Otherpolicy options that increase the cost of driving – suchas increased gasoline taxes – may also have merit asemission-reduction tools.

Automobile Insurance Reform

Cents-Per-Mile InsuranceFor almost all drivers, insurance is a “fixed cost,” mean-ing that you pay the same amount each year regard-less of how much you drive. As a result, when driversconsider the cost of driving extra miles, insurance ex-penses do not come into play. Some insurance com-panies have low-mileage discounts; for example,granting a small discount for traveling less than 5,000miles per year. But since there are typically only one

or two discount points, such programs only affect thebehavior of those whose previous mileage was justabove the break point. For example, if you drove 8,000miles the previous year, you would be unlikely to tryto reduce your driving by 3,000 miles just to receive adiscount.

This fixed-cost system makes insurance an unusualproduct, since for most goods and services, we paymore the more we use – providing an inherent disin-centive for additional consumption.

The same is likely true for insurance. Making insur-ance payments dependent on the number of milesdriven should yield a real savings to society in gaso-line and carbon dioxide emissions, while also reduc-ing accident damages.

Signs of Progress: Car Sharing in Boston

For many urban residents, owning a car canbe a costly burden – especially when the caris only needed for occasional errands andnot for a daily commute to or from work. Yetconventional car rental is often inconvenientfor urban drivers, and with its by-the-dayrate structure, often prohibitively expensive.

Enter the notion of car sharing, a form of carrental in which vehicles are rented by thehour, reserved over the Internet, andavailable in designated parking places in themidst of urban neighborhoods. In the Bostonarea, Cambridge-based Zipcar has emerged asa leading car-sharing agency, with vehiclesin most Boston neighborhoods and insurrounding towns.

Car sharing has numerous environmentalbenefits. By reducing the need for urbanresidents to own cars, car-sharing reducesthe incentive for individuals to drive theirvehicles more in order to justify the cost ofcar ownership. Zipcar estimates that itsmembers drove more than 5,000 miles peryear before joining the service, but less than400 miles per year afterwards.168 Car sharingcan also reduce the amount of urban landthat is devoted to parking, allowing for morecompact development.

Governments and institutions can do a greatdeal to encourage car sharing. SeveralBoston-area universities already provideaccess to car sharing services as a means toreduce parking expenses. And governmentscan promote car sharing by creating reservedparking spaces for car sharing at transitstops, in municipal parking lots and on citystreets, and by reducing parking requirementsfor new developments that reserve parkingspaces for car-sharing services.

Car-sharing services such as Zipcar give urbanresidents access to a car when they need it –without the hassle and expense of owning avehicle.

Zipcar

42 Shifting Gears

Of course, the injuries and damage that result fromauto accidents are not solely a function of how manymiles people drive. Insurance rates vary greatly de-pending on the demographic characteristics of driv-ers, their driving records, and the type of vehicles theydrive. For example, rural drivers, though they fre-quently travel more miles than their urban counter-parts, also tend to file fewer insurance claims. Thus,an equitable auto insurance rate structure would usemiles driven as just one among many factors for de-termining rates.

Why don’t insurance companies make more use ofmiles driven in setting rates? One argument is that itwould be overly onerous to check and verify odom-eter readings to verify vehicle travel. However, third-party systems for confirming odometer readings arefeasible and some states, such as Massachusetts, takeodometer readings during annual safety inspections.Another argument suggests that insurance companieswould not benefit from a cents-per-mile system be-cause their profit comes largely from investments, notfrom premiums themselves. Any policy that reducesthe gross income of insurance companies, this theoryholds, would reduce investment income – even if thepolicy also manages to reduce claims.

Despite these concerns, cents-per-mile insurance hasthe potential to drive significant reductions in vehicletravel. Data from U.S. government surveys and theAmerican Automobile Association (AAA) indicate thatinsurance is about 12 percent of the total cost of driv-

ing, depending on the vehicle.169 In urban areas, in-cluding many in New England where insurance ratesare much higher than the national average, the per-centage devoted to insurance is likely higher.

One study estimated the impacts on vehicle travel fora range of mileage-based insurance charges, rangingfrom 1 to 10 cents per mile. (See Table 2.) The corre-sponding reductions in travel ranged from 1.8 per-cent to 15.2 percent – meaning that carbon dioxideemissions from travel would be reduced by about thesame amount.170

It is likely that cents-per-mile charges would be as-sessed to cover only the portion of the insurance billthat is affected by the amount of driving. Other costs,related to the potential for vehicle theft and otherhazards not related to driving, would be collectedannually. In Massachusetts, for example, the averagecost of collision and liability coverage is about 10 centsper mile.172 Should even half of that amount becharged by the mile, it would lead to a reduction invehicle travel of about 8.2 percent.

In addition to reducing VMT, cents-per-mile insur-ance would likely reduce accidents (particularly byassessing higher cents-per-mile rates to poor drivers,who would have added incentive to stay off the road)as well as highway congestion. In addition, charginginsurance by the mile might reduce the financial im-pact of owning a vehicle for low-income citizens.

One major barrier to the implementation of cents-per-mile insurance is that many states (includingMassachusetts and New Hampshire) prohibit it. How-ever, a variety of trial programs in recent years showthat cents-per-mile insurance is a workable option,and a number of states are giving the option strongconsideration.

The Progressive insurance company, the U.S.’s third-largest auto insurer, has conducted pilot cents-per-mile projects in Texas and Minnesota. The Texasproject, which ran from 1998-2001, relied on the useof GPS transponders to report mileage. Drivers wereoffered discounts based on their mileage and the lo-cation of their driving. Progressive reports that theaverage discount from those reporting their mileagewas 25 percent.173 In 2004, Progressive launched the“TripSense” program in Minnesota. By March 2005,2,300 drivers had enlisted in the program by install-ing the TripSensor, a matchbox-sized device that plugs

Table 2. Travel Reduction EstimatesUnder Cents-Per-Mile Insurance

(2001 Dollars)171

1 -1.8%

2 -3.5%

3 -5.1%

4 -6.7%

5 -8.2%

6 -9.7%

7 -11.2%

8 -12.5%

9 -13.8%

10 -15.2%

Cents per mileinsurance charge

Travel reductionestimate (percent)

Shifting Gears 43

into their vehicles’ on-board diagnostic ports. Thesensor records how much, how fast, and when thevehicle is driven and the discount is based on thesethree factors. Consumers receive a 5 percent discountfor installing the sensor, another 5 percent for reportingtheir data to Progressive, and up to 20 percent in addi-tional discounts depending on their driving patterns.174

In 2004, GMAC Insurance and OnStar made avail-able a mileage discount program to selected consum-ers in four states. Consumers are asked to project theirestimated annual mileage and are given a discount ifthey project less than 15,000 miles for the comingyear. A couple of months before the policy renewaldate, OnStar takes another odometer reading and re-ports the results to GMAC, which uses the data todetermine the discount for the next policy term. Mile-age discounts range from 5 percent for those who drivetheir vehicles between 12,500 and 15,000 miles to40 percent for those who drive their vehicles less than2,500 miles per year.175

In addition to the domestic pilots, insurers in boththe United Kingdom and South Africa have consid-ered or experimented with cents-per-mile systems.176

Several U.S. states have also shown interest in cents-per-mile insurance. In 2003, the Oregon Legislatureenacted a bill providing insurers with a $100 tax creditper policy if they offer cents-per-mile pricing. To date,the state of Oregon is not aware of any insurance com-panies that have taken advantage of the offer.177 Inaddition, the state of Texas enacted legislation in 2001allowing companies to offer mileage-based insurance;advocates had originally campaigned to require in-surers to offer a cost-per-mile option.178

New England states could take several actions to ex-periment with cents-per-mile insurance:

• Investigate the link between vehicle travel andaccidents by linking existing databases that trackthe two phenomena.179

• Give insurance companies the legal authority tooffer cents-per-mile insurance where they do nothave such authority.

• Provide incentives to insurance companies to of-fer cents-per-mile insurance.

• Require insurance companies to undertake trialcents-per-mile insurance programs.

Vehicle Risk-Based Insurance PricingThe growing dominance of light trucks (SUVs, pick-ups and minivans) is a primary reason why averagevehicle fuel efficiency is falling. (See page 8.) Lighttrucks have come to be favored by automakers in partbecause they are subject to less stringent regulationwith regard to fuel economy and safety.

While fuel economy and safety may not seem related,evidence suggests that SUVs pose a greater danger toother vehicles and their occupants in accidents. Andmany of the characteristics of SUVs that add to thoserisks (for example, stiffer frames and greater weight)also reduce fuel economy. By accurately factoring thesafety risks posed by SUVs and other light trucks intoinsurance premiums for those vehicles, consumerswould see an additional financial benefit for purchas-ing automobiles, which are subject to stronger fueleconomy standards.

Under current regulations, all cars are required to haveframes that are approximately the same height off theground. In an accident, the frames hit each other andbuckle, protecting the occupants of both vehicles.SUVs and most pickup trucks, however, are designedwith higher frames, to afford the possibility of going“off-road” (even though few of them are used in thismanner). Because their frames are higher than thoseof cars and minivans, an SUV or pickup frame canride over the frame of a car in an accident, drivingthrough the car and causing bodily harm or death tothe occupants. In addition, rather than having framesthat buckle in an accident, most light trucks are builtwith stiff frames, and with front ends that do not slopedownward. These factors are especially dangerous inside-impact collisions.

A number of statistical studies have documented thedangers of light trucks. One study, by economistMichelle White of University of California-San Di-ego, concluded that, in a two-vehicle accident, thelikelihood of a fatality in a car is 38 percent less if theother vehicle in the accident is a car rather than alight truck. In addition, White concluded that acci-dents in which a light truck hits a pedestrian or cy-clist are 82 percent more likely to cause a fatality thansimilar accidents involving cars.180 Another study con-sidered two-vehicle collisions in the U.S. from 1995through 2001.181 Its results, given in the table below,

44 Shifting Gears

show the number of deaths per 100,000 crashes causedby the vehicle type shown to occupants of the othervehicle (regardless of type):

Table 3. Number of Deaths AmongOccupants of the Other Vehicle per100,000 Crashes by Type of Vehicle

Large pickups 293Large SUVs 205Small SUVs 151Compact pickups 144Minivans 104Large cars 85Midsize cars 77Compact cars 60Subcompact cars 41Minicars 39

Another study, by researchers from the University ofMichigan and Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-tory, looked at the risks solely to drivers in two-caraccidents, considering both the subject vehicle andthe other vehicle, for model years 1995-99. They con-cluded that about 3,500 fewer people would die eachyear if 60 to 80 percent of the light trucks had beencars or stations wagons instead.182 The authors foundthat the “combined risk” of deaths per million vehiclemiles was over 200 for pickup trucks, 147 for sub-compact cars, 136 for compact cars, 129 for SUVs,around 100 for large and midsize-size cars, and 85 forminivans. Not surprisingly, SUVs pose greater dan-gers to drivers of other cars (around 60 deaths permillion vehicle miles), compared to, for example, 35for compact cars. Dangers to their own drivers werelower for SUVs (75) than for compact and subcom-pact cars (100 and 110 respectively) but about thesame as for drivers of midsize and large cars.183

Auto companies have belatedly begun a small responseto the thousands of deaths caused by their vehicles bylowering the frame rails on SUVs or adding an extra“blocker beam” below the front rail to make themless likely to ride over the frames of cars in accidents.184

In addition, side-impact air bags are becoming a popu-lar option on autos, to protect occupants from beingstruck by high-riding light trucks, and to protect SUVoccupants in rollovers.

“If all drivers had to pay premiums based ontheir actual likelihood of killing or maimingsomebody else, some drivers might choosethe less deadly models on the market.”

- Keith Bradsher, formerly The New York Times’Detroit Bureau Chief, and author of the book

High and Mighty.185

Nevertheless, the pricing policies of insurance com-panies currently fail to fully take into account theadded dangers that SUVs pose to occupants of othervehicles. As a result, individuals who choose to drivesmaller, more fuel-efficient automobiles are, in effect,subsidizing purchasers of less-efficient SUVs.

Two companies, Progressive and Farmers, have buckedthe industry trend, raising rates for owners of SUVsand pickups. In 1995 and 1996 Progressive raised li-ability premiums up to 20 percent for the largest SUVsand pickups. “The regular car drivers are subsidizingSUV and pickup drivers on liability insurance,” saidDiane Tasaka, a Farmers spokeswoman.186 But theother major insurers have to date refused to changetheir ratings systems, and insurance regulators havenot encouraged or required them to do so.

The New England states should consider changes totheir insurance regulations that would correct thisdisparity. Most insurance companies use a system forrating vehicle riskiness (weight to horsepower ratio)that fails to penalize light trucks for the dangers posedby their weight and body construction. State agenciescould set new regulations that require the companiesto take full account in their rates of the true accidentliability costs posed by SUVs and pickup trucks.

Parking ReformEmployers, store owners and housing developers of-ten offer free parking to their employees, customersor residents. These businesses then pass on the cost ofproviding parking by paying lower wages or charginghigher prices, affecting drivers and non-drivers alike.In many cases, requirements that businesses providean abundance of parking spaces are enshrined in localzoning laws.

Shifting Gears 45

The treatment of free parking by zoning laws (and,often by the tax code and by general custom) is incontrast to the treatment of public transportation orother transportation alternatives. Local zoning laws,for example, generally do not require developers tooffer a transit alternative as a condition of site planapproval. And many employers do not provide subsi-dies of equivalent value to employees for using transitor other alternatives to single-passenger commuting.

There are several ways to resolve this inequity, includ-ing by charging employees the full value of their “freeparking” or offering subsidies of equivalent value forcarpooling or transit use. In addition, localities canreform their zoning laws to reduce parking require-ments for businesses or establish local caps on thenumber of parking spaces available in the commu-nity. (For more on zoning reform, see page 29.)

Parking FeesThe value of free parking to commuters is significant.One study estimated that the value of employer-paidparking averages 4.8 cents per mile driven.187 In com-parison, the American Automobile Association (AAA)estimates that operating a medium size car costs 11.5cents per mile (including fuel and maintenance costs,but not the purchase price).188 Based on these fig-ures, charging for parking would add about 40 per-cent to the cost of commuter driving – enough tosubstantially impact driving habits.

Employer-paid parking is also very widespread. By oneestimate, only 5 percent of automobile commuterspay for parking at their worksites.189

Increasing parking costs could be expected to have asmall, but potentially significant impact on parkingdemand and, ultimately, vehicle travel. A variety ofstudies have yielded parking elasticities (the changein demand resulting from a change in price) rangingfrom -0.1 to -0.6, with -0.3 being the most commonvalue. This means, for example, that a 10 percent in-crease in parking charges would yield a 3 percent dropin parking demand.190

In one study of seven workplaces that created parkingfees, the percentage of people driving to work droppedfrom 72 to 53 percent.191 Another survey comparedtransportation demand programs that imposed mar-ket rate prices for parking versus nominal charges or

no charge at all. Worksites with market rate parkingprices had 32 percent fewer trips than sites in the sur-rounding area. Sites with nominal parking charges had18 percent fewer vehicle trips, while sites with no park-ing charges (but other TDM programs) had only 8percent fewer trips.192

If raising prices for single-occupancy vehicle (SOV)parking is combined with reduced fees or other subsi-dies for carpools, vanpools, or ridesharing, then thereduction in SOV parking may cause a shift to theseother modes (high-occupancy vehicles, or HOVs). “Ofeight case study sites in the Los Angeles area, the SOVmode share decreased by 13 percentage points on av-erage, HOV mode share increased by 9 percentagepoints, and transit mode share increased by 3 per-centage points.”193

The impact of parking charges is magnified whenworkers also have access to transit. One group of esti-mates found that the reduction in SOV travel variedfrom 10 percent where transit was weakest (suburbsof small cities with low-quality transit) to 36 percentwhere transit alternatives were strongest.194

The assessment of parking fees by employers shouldbe considered as one means to achieve commute-tripreduction goals (see page 35.) Another strategy is toprovide cash payments or subsidies of equal value tofree parking for the use of transit or other alterna-tives.

Parking “Cash Out” and Transit SubsidiesSome employers already provide subsidies to employ-ees for transit use or other transportation alternatives,such as vanpooling. As of 2002, the IRS allowed transitsubsidies as a non-taxable benefit up to $100 permonth.195 Such subsidies can be an important part ofemployer-based commute trip reduction programs.(See page 35.)

Another option, implemented by California, is to“cash out” free parking by granting employees a cashbenefit equivalent to the cost of parking. Californiaenacted “parking cash-out” legislation in 1992 thatrequires some employers to allow employees the op-tion of a cash payment instead of subsidized parking.The law is limited to large employers in air qualitynon-attainment areas who subsidize parking and canreduce the number of parking spaces leased without

46 Shifting Gears

penalty. One study of eight affected employers foundthat on average the SOV mode share was reduced by12 percentage points due to the law.196

Parking LimitsSeveral cities, including Bellevue, Washington andCambridge, Mass., have implemented laws and regu-lations that limit the number of parking spaces thatcan be provided for new commercial and industrialbuildings – reversing the typical tendency of localzoning laws to force the construction of more park-ing spaces than are truly necessary.

Bellevue: Bellevue is a suburb of Seattle with a densely-populated central business district (CBD). Since 1979,the city has restricted parking for new buildings to2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet, compared to the pre-1979 minimum of 5.0 spaces. The city’s plan also in-cluded enhanced bus service. These policies reducedthe number of workers driving to work alone. Forexample, the US West office in Bellevue providedlower-priced parking to carpools, but charged marketrates for drivers traveling alone. More importantly,the company restricted parking for solo drivers to justone-quarter of the 408 garage spaces and made themavailable on a first-come-first-serve basis. Due to thisprogram, only 26 percent of US West employees drovealone, 45 percent carpooled, 2 percent vanpooled, and13 percent used public transit. Planners calculated aworst-case vehicle trip rate for the company of 0.57per employee, 31 percent lower than the 0.83 percentaverage for downtown Bellevue.197

Cambridge: Cambridge, Mass. passed a Vehicle TripReduction Ordinance in 1992 and a Parking andTransportation Demand Management (PTDM) Or-dinance in 1998. The PTDM ordinance requires mostnew commercial buildings, or those that increase theirparking spaces, to create a TDM plan. The plan mustinclude a commitment to implement vehicle trip re-duction measures such as subsidized transit passes,shuttle services, ride-sharing services, bicycle and pe-destrian facilities, flexible working hours, and prefer-ential parking for low- or zero-emission vehicles. Inaddition, the company must make a “commitmentto establish and make reasonable efforts to achieve aspecified, numerical reduction (or percent reduction)in single-occupant vehicle trips in and around Cam-bridge.”198

Cambridge estimates that as of 2004, for the first 14projects monitored, the two ordinances were respon-sible for reducing car travel by 22.1 million miles an-nually, preventing 11,300 tons of global warmingpollution.199

Other Subsidies for DrivingInsurance and parking are just two of many potentialcosts that can be reallocated in ways that promote fair-ness and discourage excessive driving. However, thereare many other hidden subsidies that promote driv-ing:

• Road construction, maintenance and operation –While federal and state gasoline taxes are a majorsource of funding for roadway repairs and mainte-nance, they do not come close to paying the entirebill. According to the Federal Highway Administra-tion, federal, state and local governments spent morethan $36 billion in general funds and other revenues(that is, funds generated from sources other than fueltaxes, tolls and vehicle taxes) on highway-related ex-penses in 2003.200 By way of comparison, this $36billion outlay is greater than the entire gross nationalexpenditure for mass transit in 2002 – including bothoperating and capital expenses, and not including themore than $8 billion in transit expenses recovered frompassengers through fares.

• Environmental and social costs – Automobiles pro-duce a variety of negative environmental and socialimpacts that are not reflected in the price of driving.Air pollution, noise pollution, water pollution, wild-life impacts, land consumption, and impacts from thedisposal of vehicle waste are among these impacts. Inaddition, automobiles impose social costs, such asimpacts on property values, uncompensated healthand economic productivity impacts from accidentsand congestion.

• Fuel subsidies – A number of direct and indirectsubsidies support the production and distribution ofpetroleum-based fuels for vehicle use. One 1996 studyestimated the cost of tax subsidies to the petroleumindustry of between $3.3 billion and $10.9 billionannually.201 Additional costs, also totaling in the bil-lions of dollars, can be attributed to military and se-curity expenditures designed to ensure the continuedsupply of oil from overseas.

Shifting Gears 47

There are numerous public policy tools that can beused to reduce these inherent subsidies for driving –among them, “congestion pricing” schemes that seekto monetize the additional congestion caused by driv-ers at peak periods and gasoline or carbon taxes de-signed to internalize the contribution of motor vehiclesto global warming. New England states should con-sider these and other measures to ensure that auto-mobile drivers pay their fair share of the costs theyimpose on other segments of society.

Revamping Transportation

Planning and Finance

Key Recommendations:• Consider the adoption of least-cost criteria in

transportation planning.• Include consideration of global warming impacts

in transportation decision-making.• Take advantage of available opportunities to bet-

ter fund transit and other transportation alter-natives.

For decades, transportation planning has emphasized“supply-side” solutions to transportation problems. Inother words, when congestion emerges on a highway,the reflexive response is to expand the highway, notto reduce demand or shift demand to other modes oftransportation. In recent years, transportation plan-ners have come to question this approach on botheconomic and environmental grounds by showing thathighway expansion often leads to land-use patternsand other decisions that encourage more driving –eventually leading to the reemergence of congestion.

But while this approach to transportation planning isdeeply ingrained, it is not the only possible approach– nor is it the most effective one. A more balancedtransportation planning process that considers both arange of supply-side options as well as demand man-agement is more likely to yield a transportation sys-tem that supports sustainable development and is lesscostly to taxpayers. In addition, states must revamptheir transportation planning processes and fundingdecisions to recognize the impact that transportationmakes on the climate and to support alternatives toautomobile travel more aggressively.

Least-Cost PlanningLeast-cost planning promotes a more balanced ap-proach to transportation planning by including tran-sit and reduced travel demand as serious options formeeting mobility needs. By adopting least-cost plan-ning as the framework for measuring choices that willdetermine future transportation options, New En-gland states could reduce global warming pollutionand spend transportation funds more wisely.

Principles of Least-Cost PlanningLeast-cost planning ensures that all transportationoptions (including demand management) are consid-ered in transportation planning and identifies thosethat best improve mobility at the lowest total cost.Often, the cheapest option will also be the one thatproduces fewer global warming emissions. For ex-ample, widening a freeway to allow more people todrive to work at the same time can relieve (thoughoften only temporarily) pressure on a crowded road.Alternatively, operating commuter rail trains morefrequently, increasing the number of people whocarpool, and working with employers to promotetelecommuting can achieve the same improvements.

Determining the cheapest option requires first estab-lishing the goal the transportation system will be de-signed to serve. Then, planners must assess thelong-term costs and benefits of different projects. Fac-tors that may be considered include the cost to gov-ernments to build a road or rail line, the expense ofoperating transit services or a vanpool program, andthe cost of alternative air quality mitigation measuresto offset pollution from transportation. Costs andbenefits that accrue to consumers and businessesshould be considered in addition to governmentalcosts. For example, consumers bear the cost of ve-hicle ownership and benefit from having alternativesto driving. Reducing congestion and the amount oftime lost in traffic is a benefit for consumers and forbusinesses that ship goods. Businesses also save moneywhen employees and customers need fewer parkingspaces. Finally, vehicle-centered transportation andland-use systems impose environmental costs such asair and water pollution.

Least-cost planning must be practiced in such a wayas to balance long-term costs and benefits – not merelyminimize short-term costs. For example, some formsof transit, such as rail, are capital intensive to build,

48 Shifting Gears

but yield a variety of important benefits, includingair pollution reductions, reductions in highway con-gestion, and support for compact, sustainable formsof development. Moreover, the benefits of capital in-vestment in rail accumulate over a long period of time– New England, for example, continues to benefitfrom rail investments made over a century ago. Theselong-term benefits must be included in any least-costplanning decisions in order to derive the “right” mixof transportation investments for any particular re-gion.

Benefits of Least-Cost PlanningLeast-cost planning requires planners to evaluate abroad range of options for meeting future transporta-

tion needs and to consider all the impacts of eachchoice. It offers an opportunity to anticipate acommunity’s needs and evaluate policies and projectsthat will meet demand for not only mobility – theprimary measuring stick by which highway projectsare evaluated – but also clean air, lower private costs,hassle-free commutes, and mobility for those whocannot drive.

Often, after considering all these factors, the least ex-pensive policy for meeting transportation needs willbe reduced travel demand. Reduced travel demandcan be achieved through a range of policies such ascommute trip reduction, compact development, andrescheduling trips to occur at off-peak times. Reducedtravel also reduces global warming emissions.

One common objection to least-costplanning is that it might produce a biasagainst investments in public transit that,while capital intensive, provide multipleenvironmental and other benefits for thelong term.

There is a kernel of truth to the argument:by prioritizing transportation projects thatprovide maximum “bang for the buck,” least-cost planning can alter the current bias infavor of large capital projects for bothtransit and highways in favor of frequentlyignored transportation solutions such asdemand-reduction efforts, preventivemaintenance, and improvements of serviceon existing facilities.

But, if implemented properly, there is noreason that least-cost planning should bebiased against transit versus highways. Infact, the opposite should be true, for severalreasons:

• True least-cost planning includes the nega-tive environmental and social impacts oftransportation projects, which are typicallyless severe for transit projects than forhighway projects.

• True least-cost planning includes privateas well as public expenditures in evaluat-

ing the costs of a given project. The costsof providing transportation services alonga highway, for example, are far greater thanthe cost of laying asphalt – they also in-clude the cost of purchasing, fueling andmaintaining private vehicles, providing park-ing, and providing ongoing maintenance andtraffic law enforcement.

• True least-cost planning considers the rippleeffects of projects on other parts of thetransportation system. A new highway, forexample, will often generate traffic that cre-ates congestion at other points of the sys-tem. Transit projects often have the oppositeeffect of reducing congestion on other trans-portation facilities.

• Least-cost planning is most useful when car-ried out over the long-term and when thegoals established for the transportation sys-tem are clearly defined, devised with theparticipation and input of the public, andinclude not just traditional measures ofmobility, but also measures of access totransportation and broader communityhealth and well-being. This more holisticview of the role of transportation often fa-vors transit.202

Issues in Focus: The Cost of Transit versus Highways

Shifting Gears 49

The state of Washington requires that regionaltransportation planning organizations useleast-cost planning when developingtransportation plans.203 Planners are toconsider both the direct and indirect costs ofdemand and supply. A planning documentdeveloped by the Puget Sound RegionalCouncil (PSRC) demonstrates the potential ofleast-cost planning to weigh a variety offactors and help reduce global warmingemissions.

The PSRC revised its planning document in2000 using least-cost planning to evaluatealternatives for serving the increasedtransportation needs of a growing population.PSRC created four scenarios for meeting futuredemand:

1) An update of an earlier plan that includeda variety of transit options, compactdevelopment, and building 1,240 regularlane miles and 403 HOV lane miles ofhighway.

2) The option above with only those projectsfor which funding had been identified orsecured. This scenario would buildrelatively little transit, and 151 regularlane miles and 72 HOV lane miles.

3) A plan that greatly boosts transportationcapacity, including a significant transitcomponent and 641 lane miles and 53HOV lane miles.

4) The first option above with an emphasis onimproving system performance by reducinghighway demand. The plan would includeadditional transit infrastructure, route areasand operating hours, and would add 52regular lane miles and 157 HOV lane milesof highway. Pedestrian and bicyclingfacilities also would be expanded. Land-usepolicies would steer development tolocations that can be served by transit andincrease densities in targeted areas.204

Using money and time as measures, PSRCcalculated the cost-per-trip of each option. Thefourth, more transit-oriented alternative provedto be cheapest. (Notably, the public cost ofOption 4 was significantly higher than the morehighway-oriented options, but the privatesavings more than outweighed those additionalcosts.) Most expensive were the second andthird choices, the second because it provideslittle benefit and the third due to high costs.(See Table 4.) Over the 30 years covered by theplan, these seemingly small differences in newtrip costs add up to $3 billion.205

PSRC did not evaluate global warmingemissions from the different options, but theoptions involving more road construction wouldincrease car travel and thus emissions. Thoseare also the options that proved the mostexpensive. Had PSRC included global warmingemissions as another cost of each plan, thedifferences might have been even greater.

Public Cost $0.60 $0.30 $0.83 $0.80

Congestion Cost $0.21 $0.47 $0.14 $0.18

Pollution Cost $0.06 $0.10 $0.04 $0.04

Consumer Cost $0.66 $0.78 $0.70 $0.59

Travel Time Cost $0.73 $0.71 $0.66 $0.62

Total Cost $2.26 $2.36 $2.37 $2.23

Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4

Table 4. Selected Per-Trip Costs of Different Transportation PlansEvaluated with Least-Cost Planning206

Bright Ideas from Elsewhere: Least-Cost Planning in the Puget Sound Area

50 Shifting Gears

The concept of integrated or least-cost planning origi-nated in the electric industry, where decision makershave long realized that reducing demand through ef-ficiency and conservation can be less expensive thanbuilding a new power plant and will achieve the sameend of delivering reliable power to everyone. Least-cost planning is newer to the transportation sector. Itis currently in use in Washington state, and has beenpartially adopted elsewhere.

Considering Global WarmingEmissions in TransportationPlanningA criterion that planning agencies should includewhen evaluating growth, land use, and transportationoptions is what impact different options will have onglobal warming. Whether a community decides to useleast-cost planning or to continue with traditional planevaluation methods, global warming should be a fac-tor in the decision.

In New England, Massachusetts has begun to incor-porate global warming emissions as one of many fac-tors to be considered in planning. In spring 2004,Massachusetts announced that, as part of the state’sclimate protection plan, it would “include energy useand [greenhouse gas] emissions data as criteria in trans-portation decisions.”207 To date, the state has createddetailed instructions to help regional agencies evalu-ate emissions impacts.208 Though regional agenciesare not required to include reduced global warmingimpacts as one of their transportation goals, all agen-cies in the state have voluntarily adopted the target.

Maine adopted the “Sensible Transportation PolicyAct” in 1991 to update the state’s transportation plan-ning policies. The goal of the law is to reduce theextent to which Maine’s transportation planning isseparated from the comprehensive planning processthat governs land use and to protect the state’seconomy by reducing dependence on foreign energysupplies.209 The law requires that non-road construc-tion alternatives be considered in the planning pro-cess and be given preference, a stipulation that, if morerigorously applied, could help the state focus moreon transit and alternatives to driving.

Funding Transit and Alternativesto DrivingOnce a state has developed a transportation plan, com-plete with transit options and support for other alter-natives to driving, it must be funded. States can drawon a variety of funding sources, including federal tran-sit funding, federal flexible funds that can be appliedto road projects or transit, and a variety of state-levelrevenue sources. State funds provide the bulk of tran-sit funding in Connecticut, Massachusetts and RhodeIsland, but Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont aremore reliant on federal funds.210

Federal FundingThe federal government offers significant funding fortransportation projects. Fortunately, states have a largeamount of freedom in choosing how they spend theirfederal transportation funding and can use federaltransit and highway funds to support transportationprojects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

TRANSIT FUNDINGThe Federal Transit Administration (FTA), a divisionof the Department of Transportation, is the largestsource of funding for states interested in developingand supporting transit systems that offer alternativesto driving. For 2005, the FTA allocated $7.2 billionfor transit, with $5.6 billion designated to provideongoing support to existing transit systems and $1.6billion set aside for the construction of new transitprojects.211

The FTA allocated $1.4 billion to new transit pro-grams in 2005 through its New Starts Program.212

These funds are dedicated to the construction of newtransit systems or significant expansions of existingsystems, such as the addition of new service lines. NewEngland states have made significant use of New Startsfunding. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Au-thority is using $571 million in New Starts moneyspread over multiple years to pay for 60 percent ofthe cost of a tunnel for its Bus Rapid Transit SilverLine expansion, raising the remaining 40 percent fromlocal bonds.213 Similarly, the Vermont Agency ofTransportation used New Starts funding to improverail infrastructure in the Burlington area.214

Shifting Gears 51

FLEXIBLE FUNDINGFlexible funding, or funding that can be used for ei-ther highways or alternatives to driving, is anunderused yet large source of funding for state andlocal governments. Flexible funding gives states theoption of using a portion of their Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) funds for transit or pedes-trian and bicycle programs. Of the $190 billion thefederal government spent on transportation between1992 and 1999, almost $50 billion, or 26 percent,was in the form of flexible funds.215

Flexible funding comes from two main sources in theFHWA. One is the Congestion Mitigation and AirQuality Improvement (CMAQ) Program. CMAQfunds are dedicated for transportation projects thatwill reduce air pollution in areas that fail to meet airquality standards.216 The other source is the SurfaceTransportation Program (STP), which, in addition tofunding pedestrian and biking projects through a pro-gram called Transportation Enhancements, funds avariety of transit projects.

New England states have used flexible funds for a va-riety of projects. In 2002, Connecticut used over $5million in CMAQ flexible funds to purchase buses,while Vermont used $1.3 million in STP funds for acommuter rail project.217 The city of Windham, Con-necticut used $800,000 in Transportation Enhance-ments money (a dedicated set-aside program withinSTP) and $200,000 in local funds to make its streetsmore bicycle and pedestrian friendly, while Milford,Massachusetts used a similar combination of fundingto build a bicycle and pedestrian trail.218 New En-gland states have also been able to use flexible fund-ing budgeted for the Transportation and Communityand System Preservation Pilot Program, which re-ceived $90 million in funding in 2003. Funding forthis program has been used in New England to makecommunities more pedestrian and bicycle friendly.219

However, only a fraction of flexible funds are used foralternatives to driving. Vermont has been the mostaggressive state in the region for using flexible fundsto support transit. Between fiscal year 1998 and fiscalyear 2004, Vermont used $44 million in flexible fed-eral funding for transit, or 22 percent of all the state’sflexible funds. Vermont attributes some of its focuson transit to a long-standing effort to improve trans-portation for senior citizens and the disabled.220 Bycontrast, New Hampshire allocated only 5 percent of

its flexible funds to transit, for a total of only $10million.221 (See Table 5.)

Interestingly, Massachusetts was identified in a 2000Brookings Institution study as a national leader in theuse of flexible funds for transit.223 But the percentageof funding used for transit in the state has droppedconsiderably in recent years.

States also have the opportunity to use flexible fundsto support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure pro-grams, yet, nationally, few states have taken advan-tage of this opportunity. In 2005, for example,excluding funds from the Transportation Enhance-ments program (which is designed to promote pedes-trian and bicycling projects as well as other cultural,historic preservation and environmental programs),states spent only $86 million nationwide from otherflexible funds on these projects.224

The availability of flexible federal funding provides agolden opportunity for states to promote strategicinvestments in transit and other transportation alter-natives. While some New England states appear to betaking better advantage of that opportunity than oth-ers, all should consider devoting more of these re-sources to transportation strategies that will reduceautomobile dependence and global warming pollution.

State FundingState funding can play an important role in bringingabout transportation programs that reduce greenhousegas emissions. The New England states vary widely intheir support for transit programs. Massachusetts di-rects significant state funding to transit while NewHampshire spends almost nothing. By using a varietyof funding sources, states can increase their supportfor transit and alternatives to driving.

Table 5. Amount and Percentage of Flexible FundsUsed for Transit by State, FY 1998-FY 2004 222

Connecticut $75,837,740 15%

Maine $27,985,693 13%

Massachusetts $88,415,297 11%

New Hampshire $10,200,400 5%

Rhode Island $26,361,816 13%

Vermont $44,089,727 22%

Flexible FundsUsed for Transit

Pct. Of FlexibleFunds

52 Shifting Gears

USING DRIVER TAXES AND FEES TO PAY FOR DRIV-ING ALTERNATIVESWhile the mix of transportation funding sources isunique for each New England state, most states relyon a combination of general funds as well as taxesand fees collected from drivers. General funds includebonds and general tax revenue, while driving-relatedfees include gasoline taxes, motor vehicle fees and tollreceipts.

All of these revenue sources are potential fundingsources for transit and for pedestrian and cycling im-provements. Though some argue that driving-relatedfees and taxes should be applied to road constructionand maintenance expenses only, broader use of thisrevenue is sensible, for two key reasons. First, gas andvehicle fees provide revenue by taxing an activity withnegative public impacts, such as air pollution. Usingdriving-related revenue to fund transit can help miti-gate some of the consequences of driving. Second,improvements to bus and rail transit ease pressure onhighways and roads, reducing the need for expensiveroad construction projects.

Massachusetts applies driving-related fees to transitservices, and Rhode Island spends one-quarter of itsgas tax revenue on transit.230 Unfortunately, not allNew England states are as flexible in their use of driv-ing-related fees. For example, New Hampshire’s con-stitution requires that gasoline tax proceeds be usedto pay for the state’s highways only, prohibiting gastax receipts from being used on transit and other al-ternatives to driving.231 A similar limit on the use ofstate highway tax income restricts Maine’s ability tofund transit.232 This policy tilts transportation optionstoward driving and away from modes with lower glo-bal warming emissions.

Shifting toward less carbon-intensive modes of trans-portation will require public investment – althoughthe benefits of that investment in cleaner air, reducedcongestion and improved quality of life should morethan cover the costs. States should work to eliminatelegal barriers and outmoded practices that preventthem from putting adequate capital into the develop-ment of effective transportation alternatives.

Vermont is an example of a state that hassuccessfully used driving-related fees toencourage alternatives to driving. The statecollects $240 million annually through motorvehicles fees and gasoline taxes.225 Of thisincome, $68 million is directed to otherprograms, such as education. The remainingmoney is then complemented with $128million in federal and local funds to pay forthe state’s $300 million annualtransportation expenditures. Of thisspending, 13 percent is spent on alternativemodes of transportation.226 As a result,Vermont has the second-highest per-capitaspending on bicycle and pedestrian programsin the country. 227

The use of state and federal funds to supportbicycling and pedestrian facilities has paidoff. A total of 6 percent of Vermont residentsnow commute to work by walking or

bicycling.228 And Burlington, Vermont hasbeen recognized by the League of AmericanBicyclists as one of 51 “Bicycle FriendlyCommunities” nationwide – one of only twocommunities in New England (the other beingBrunswick, Maine) to earn the honor.229

Dedicated bicycle lanes and well-marked bikelanes on city streets can increase the number ofcommuters who feel comfortable riding theirbikes to work or to transit.

Signs of Progress: Using Driving-Related Fees to Support Transportation Alternatives

Sandy Ridlington

Shifting Gears 53

The 20 “bright ideas” highlighted here are byno means the only options for reducing theimpact of New England’s transportation

system on global warming. There are several otherpolicy tools that states could consider to reduce glo-bal warming emissions and address other energy-related problems.

Increased gasoline tax/petroleum conservationcharge. The recent spike in gasoline prices has beenpainful for many New Englanders, but it has achievedone thing: it has convinced many people to drive less,to drive more carefully, and to use other transporta-tion alternatives.

Preliminary data from the Federal Highway Admin-istration suggest that the number of vehicle-miles trav-eled on New England highways decreased in 2005for the first time in more than a decade, due in largepart to the major jump in gasoline prices followingHurricanes Katrina and Rita.233 During October2005, for example, when gasoline prices averaged morethan $2.50 per gallon, the number of vehicle-milestraveled in New England dipped by more than 6 per-cent compared to the year before.234 Meanwhile, tran-sit ridership increased by more than 3 percentnationally in the third quarter (July through Septem-ber) of 2005 compared to the previous year.235

Recent research suggests that every 10 percent increasein gasoline prices leads to a 1 percent reduction infuel consumption in the short term.236 Even greaterlong-term reductions are possible from consumers’decision to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

An increase in the gasoline tax would continue thisshift toward more efficient driving habits, even if theprice of gasoline recedes. Such an increase would beeven more effective if the revenues were placed into a“petroleum conservation fund” that would be used toprovide incentives for the purchase of more fuel-effi-cient vehicles, increase funding for mass transit, andpromote other strategies to reduce fuel consumptionand global warming emissions. A similar strategy hasbeen used since the late 1990s to promote the moreefficient use of electricity through small “systems ben-efit charges” on consumers’ electricity bills.

Additional Options for Reducing Global

Warming Emissions from Transportation

New England states should consider the appropriatelevel of taxation on gasoline and other motor fuels inlight of the need to reduce the dependence of theregion’s transportation system on fossil fuels and re-duce global warming emissions. States such as NewHampshire and Maine that currently restrict the useof gasoline tax revenue for transit and other transpor-tation alternatives should reconsider those restrictions.

Renewable fuel standards. One way to reduce fossilfuel dependence and global warming emissions wouldbe for states to require that a certain percentage ofmotor fuel come from renewable sources, such as bio-mass-based ethanol or biodiesel. The state of Minne-sota, for example, will require that 20 percent ofgasoline consist of ethanol by 2013 and has just imple-mented a requirement that 2 percent of the state’s die-sel fuel consist of “biodiesel.”

New England states considering such an approachshould ensure that the standard delivers the maximumenvironmental benefit. First, there is evidence thatethanol (particularly when used in low concentrationsin gasoline) and biodiesel may increase emissions ofsome air pollutants. Any renewable fuels strategyshould ensure that the region’s air quality is not nega-tively affected. Second, the states should encourage,wherever possible, the development of cellulosic etha-nol from plant wastes and energy crops, rather thantoday’s more common corn-based ethanol. Cellulosicethanol has been shown to deliver far greater globalwarming emission and energy benefits than corn-basedethanol.237

Federal vehicle fuel economy standards. Increasingvehicle fuel economy is one of the most effective waysto reduce global warming emissions from vehicles.Unfortunately, states are prohibited from adoptingtheir own vehicle fuel economy standards under fed-eral law. New England officials should use the toolsthey have available – such as financial incentives – toencourage improvement in the fuel economy of ve-hicles on the region’s roads. But they should also pushCongress to improve federal fuel economy standardsto at least 40 miles per gallon over the next decade.

54 Shifting Gears

Notes

1. Dave Algoso and Michael Goggin, New England ClimateCoalition, Getting on Track: New England’s Rising Global Warm-ing Emissions and How to Reverse the Trend, February 2005.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Based on Dave Algoso and Michael Goggin, New EnglandClimate Coalition, Getting on Track: New England’s Rising Glo-bal Warming Emissions and How to Reverse the Trend, February2005; and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy InformationAdministration, International Energy Review 2002, 2004, tableH1.co2.

5. See note 1.

6. Based on monthly estimates of vehicle-miles traveled fromFederal Highway Administration, Traffic Volume Trends, Janu-ary 2004 through December 2005, downloaded fromwww.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm, 28 October 2005and 28 February 2006.

7. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Per-cent Change in Metropolitan Population Inside and Outside Cen-tral Cities, by Region and Division: 1990-1999, downloadedfrom www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/MA-99-map2.gif, 7 April 2005.

8. Nancy McGuckin and Nanda Srinivasan, Journey to WorkTrends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan Areas:1960-2000, prepared for the Federal Highway Administra-tion, 30 June 2003.

9. U.S. Census Bureau, Travel to Work Characteristics for theUnited States by State: 1990 Census, downloaded fromwww.census.gov/population/socdemo/journey/state.txt, 21March 2006

10. See note 8.

11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration, Highway Statistics series, Summary to 1995and individual reports from 1996 to 2003.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Au-tomotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through2004, Appendix C, April 2004.

13. Real world fuel economy: U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and FuelEconomy Trends: 1975 Through 2004, Appendix C, April 2004;CAFE standards: U.S. Department of Transportation, Sum-mary of Fuel Economy Performance, March 2003.

14. See note 11.

15. National Association of Railroad Passengers, U.S. Passen-ger Rail System Maps, downloaded from www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm, 10 May 2005.

16. Data for cars, light trucks/SUVs, Amtrak and domesticairlines for 2001 from U.S. Department of Transportation,Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National TransportationStatistics 2004, January 2005; data for commuter rail for 1998from Robert Shapiro, Kevin Hassett, and Frank Arnold,American Public Transportation Association, Conserving En-ergy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transpor-tation, July 2002.

17. Association of American Railroads, Freight Rail Fact Book,downloaded from www.tomorrowsrailroads.com/industry/factbook.cfm, 22 April 2005.

18. I-95 Corridor Coalition, Northeast Rail Operations Study(NEROps) Summary, downloaded from www.dot.state.ny.us/nasto/emphasis-areas-files/rail/nerops%20summary.doc, 22April 2005.

19. Association of American Railroads, Railroad Industry In-formation, Railroads and States, downloaded fromwww.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/RRState_Rankings.pdf, 22 April 2005.

20. American Association of State Highway and Transporta-tion Officials, Transportation-Invest in America: Freight-RailBottom-Line Report, downloaded fromfreight.transportation.org/doc/FreightRailReport.pdf, 22April 2005.

21. U.S. Census Bureau, Means of Transportation to Work forthe U.S., downloaded from www.census.gov/population/socdemo/journey/mode6790.txt, 22 April 2005.

22. U.S. Census Bureau, Journey to Work: 2000, March 2004.

23. See note 8.

24. New England Regional Assessment, U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program, The New England Regional Assessment ofthe Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,Final Report, March 2002.

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,Planning, and Evaluation, Climate Change and Massachusetts,September 1997; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Policy, Climate Change and Rhode Island, Septem-ber 1998.

26. See note 24.

27. New England Regional Assessment, U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program, The New England Regional Assessment ofthe Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,Final Report, March 2002; and U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Analysis, GlobalWarming State Impacts, available at yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/ImpactsStateImpacts.html.

28. “Awful Weather We’re Having: Why Climate ChangeCould Mean Higher Insurance Premiums,” The Economist,30 September 2004; and U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Air and Radiation, Preparing for GlobalWarming: Smart Insurance, July 2000.

29. Federal Highway Administration and New HampshireDepartment of Transportation, Final Environmental ImpactStatement, Interstate 93 Improvements, Salem to Manchester,IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418-C, Volume 1, April 2004.

30. Robert Cervero, et al, “Transit-Oriented Developmentand Joint Development in the United States: A LiteratureReview,” Research Results Digest, for Transit Cooperative Re-search Program, October 2002; and American Public Trans-portation Association, The Benefits of Public Transportation:Building Investment Value in Our Economy and Marketplace,downloaded from www.apta.com/research/info/online/docu-ments/land_use.pdf, 19 April 2005.

31. Barbara McCann and Reid Ewing, Smart GrowthAmerica and Surface Transportation Policy Project, Measur-ing the Health Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Sprawl,Obesity, and Chronic Disease, September 2003.

32. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Re-sources Board, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for

Shifting Gears 55

Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Adoptionof Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from MotorVehicles, 6 August 2004. Earlier analysis by CARB suggestedthat even deeper cuts in vehicle emissions could be mademore quickly. CARB’s initial draft proposal for implemen-tation of the standards called for cost-effective emission re-ductions of 22 percent from cars and 24 percent from lighttrucks in the near term. Over the medium term (2012 to2014), cost-effective reductions of 32 percent for cars and30 percent for light-trucks were deemed feasible. In addi-tion, the standards were assumed to be phased in much morequickly than under CARB’s most recent proposal. See Cali-fornia Environmental Protection Agency, Air ResourcesBoard, Draft Staff Proposal Regarding the Maximum Feasibleand Cost-Effective Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions fromMotor Vehicles, 14 June 2004.

33. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Re-sources Board, Technical Support Document for Staff ProposalRegarding Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles: Economic Impacts of the Climate Change Regula-tions, 6 August 2004.

34. Total savings based on Northeast States for Coordi-nated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), as presented inNortheast State GHG Emission Reduction Potential from Adop-tion of the California Motor Vehicle GHG Standards, Sum-mary of NESCAUM Analysis, October 2005. Equivalentnumber of today’s cars based on average vehicle fuel economyof 22 miles per gallon and 12,000 miles per vehicle peryear.

35. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, Vehicle Buyer’s Guide for Consumers: Con-necticut, May 2004; Energy Efficiency and Renewable En-ergy, U.S. Department of Energy, Vehicle Buyer’s Guide forConsumers: Rhode Island, June 2004; Energy Efficiency andRenewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, VehicleBuyer’s Guide for Consumers: Maine, March 2004.

36. Regional Economic Models, Inc., Combined EconomicImpact of Enacting a Feebates Program in Rhode Island, Con-necticut, Massachusetts, Maine, 31 December 2004.

37. California Energy Commission, California State Fuel-Efficient Tire Report: Volume 2, January 2003.

38. Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 25770-25773.

39. Based on outputs from Argonne National Laboratory’sGreenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Usein Transportation model, GREET 1.7 beta, downloadedfrom www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/index.html, 14 March 2006. Results based on default as-sumptions with exception of adjustment for Northeast U.S.electricity mix. Based on year 2005 passenger cars.

40. Based on National Research Council, National Acad-emy of Engineering, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities,Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs, The National AcademiesPress, 2004.

41. 140,000 vehicles: Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics 2003, Table MV-1: State Motor-VehicleRegistrations, October 2004; Federal Highway Administra-tion, Highway Statistics 2003, Table MV-7: Publicly OwnedVehicles, October 2004. Fuel use: Federal Highway Admin-istration, Highway Statistics 2003, Table MF-21: Motor-FuelUse, November 2003.

42. Connecticut General Assembly, An Act Concerning Cleanand Alternative Fuel Vehicles, signed into law 8 June 2004.

43. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Cli-mate Protection Plan, Spring 2004.

44. Based on 2003 figures from Federal Transit Adminis-tration, National Transit Database, downloaded fromwww.ntdprogram.com, 26 April 2005.

45. Sharon Feigon, et al, Transit Cooperative Research Pro-gram, Travel Matters: Mitigating Climate Change with Sus-tainable Surface Transportation, 2003. A recent Universityof Connecticut study found that Connecticut’s hybrid busesare 10 to 15 percent more fuel-efficient than conventionalbuses. See University of Connecticut, UConn Study: NoEmissions Benefit from Connecticut Hybrid Transit Buses, pressrelease, 15 September 2005.

46. See Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium, Hybrid-Electric Drive Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emission Testing Project,Final Emissions Report, 15 February 2000.

47. See note 45.

48. See note 22.

49. National Association of Railroad Passengers, BasicAmtrak Statistics, downloaded from www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=resources%2Ehtm, 10 May 2005.

50. Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, Per-formance Report: September 2005.

51. Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority,Downeaster Achieves Record Ridership, press release, 26 Oc-tober 2005.

52. The Boston Foundation, The Boston Indicators Project,Section 10.2.2, Trends in Rapid-Transit Ridership, down-loaded from www.tbf.org/indicators2004/transportation/indicators.asp?id=2628&crosscutID=322&crosscutName=Sustainable%20Development, 31 October 2005;Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database,2003 Transit Profiles: Top 50 Transit Agencies, downloadedfrom www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/ntdhome.nsf/Docs/NTDPublications?OpenDocument#, 31 October 2005.

53. Mayor’s Office, City of Worcester, Commuter Rail Westof Boston: The Demand and the Dilemma, February 2005.

54. 8,560 on the New Bedford/Falls River extension: Mas-sachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, New Bedford/FallRiver Commuter Rail Extension, Frequently Asked Questions,downloaded from www.mbta.com/projects_underway/nbfr_faqs.asp, 11 February 2005; and Massachusetts BayTransportation Authority, Greenbush Project, downloadedfrom www.mbta.com/projects_underway/greenbush.asp, 11February 2005.

55. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Ridership,downloaded from www.mbta.com/insidethet/taag_ridership.asp, 16 March 2005.

56. South Western Regional Metropolitan Planning Orga-nization, Draft South Western Region Long Range Transpor-tation Plan 2004-2030, September 2004.

57. Based on 1991 and 1993 data cited in Federal RailroadAdministration, Energy, downloaded from www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/977, 11 February 2005.

58. Katherine Hooper, Transportation Research Board, In-novative Suburb-to-Suburb Transit Practices, 1995.

59. “Bus Systems are Responding to Suburban Commut-ing Demands,” Commuters’ Register, February 1998.

56 Shifting Gears

60. Connecticut Transit, Hartford East Bus Rapid Transit Fea-sibility Study, downloaded from 66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Q-n6iaetNNAJ:www.ctbusway.com/man/D r a f t % 2 5 2 0 F i n a l / d r a f t _ f i n a l _ 1 -5.pdf+connecticut+%22x+route%22+ridership&hl=en&ie=UTF-8, 24 February 2005.

61. “Suburb to Suburb Bus Service with FastConnects,” Den-ver Regional Transportation District, downloaded from www.rtd-denver.com/fastracks/fastconnects.html, 24 February 2005.

62. Northwest Municipal Conference, Metra STAR Line,downloaded from nwmc-cog.org/jahia/Jahia/pid/111, 24 Feb-ruary 2005.

63. Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Develop-ment District, Regional Transportation Plan 2003, October2003.

64. Richard Partt, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Trav-eler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 10: BusRouting and Coverage, 2004.

65. See note 58.

66. Sally Stocker, NJ Transit, personal communication, 2 No-vember 2005.

67. Ibid.

68. Pace Bus, Pace History and Facts, downloaded fromwww.pacebus.com/sub/about/history_facts.asp, 24 February2005.

69. See note 58.

70. King County Metro, Metro Vanpool Program, downloadedfrom transit.metrokc.gov/tops/van-car/vanpool.html, 9 May2005.

71. Easy Street Vanpools, About Easy Street, downloaded fromwww.EasyStreet.org/about.html, 24 March, 2005; and LauraHiggins and Robin Rabinowitz, Transit-Operated Vanpools inthe United States: Selected Case Studies, December 2002.

72. Central Transportation Planning Staff, Mobility in the Bos-ton Region: Existing Conditions and Next Steps: 2004 Conges-tion Management System Report, December 2004.

73. Steve Linnell, Greater Portland Council of Governments,personal communication, 23 January 2006.

74. Connecticut Department of Transportation, Explore YourOptions, downloaded from www.ctrides.com/default.htm, 21March 2005.

75. Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation,MassRIDES, downloaded from www.commute.com, 21 March2005; New Hampshire Department of Transportation, NewHampshire Rideshare, downloaded from www.nh.gov/dot/nhrideshare/index.htm, 21 March 2005; Steve Linnell, GreaterPortland Council of Governments, personal communication,23 January 2006.

76. Robert Cervero, et al., Reverse Commuting and Job Accessin California: Markets, Needs and Policy Prospects, September2004.

77. Ibid.

78. Associated Press, “MBTA Nixes Night Owl Bus Routes,”Boston Globe, 12 March 2005.

79. 42 transit agencies: Federal Transit Administration, Tran-sit Authorities by State, downloaded from www.fta.dot.gov, 17February 2005; 162 bus routes: Massachusetts Bay Transpor-

tation Authority, Infrastructure, downloaded fromwww.mbta.com/insidethet/taag_infrastructure.asp, 17 March2005.

80. U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Demographic Char-acteristics, Bennington County, 2000.

81. Vermont Public Transportation Association, Green Moun-tain Chapter American Red Cross, downloaded fromwww.vpta.net/memeber_dtl.cfm?edit_id=29, 17 March 2005.

82. Charles Rutkowski, “In From the Cold: Green Moun-tain Express Warms Up to New Facility,” Community Trans-portation, Fall 2004.

83. Jay Skelly, Green Mountain Express, personal commu-nication, 17 March 2005.

84. See note 82.

85. Sandra Sheehan, Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, per-sonal communication, 17 March 2005.

86. Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Data-base, Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, 18 September 2001.

87. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, Budget Information,downloaded from www.pvta.com/budget.html, 17 March2005.

88. Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, History of the PVTA,downloaded from www.pvta.com/history.html, 9 March2005.

89. Advance Transit, Upper Valley Travel Guide, downloadedfrom www.advancetransit.com, 17 March 2005.

90. Greater Portland Council of Governments and South-ern Maine Regional Planning Commission, Bus Rapid Tran-sit and Light Rail Transit, Technical Memorandum, December2004.

91. John Evans IV et al, Transit Cooperative Research Pro-gram (TCRP), National Research Council, National Acad-emy of Sciences, “Transit Scheduling and Frequency,” Chap-ter 9 of Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes,TCRP Report 95, 2004.

92. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), NationalResearch Council, National Academy of Sciences, An Evalu-ation of the Relationships Between Transit and Urban Form,TCRP Research Results Digest No. 7, June 1995.

93. Katherine Watkins, Institute of Transportation Engineers,Cambridge’s Traffic Calming Program: Pedestrians are the Fo-cus, downloaded from www.ite.org/traffic/documents/AB00H3702.pdf, 18 March 2005.

94. Petra Staats, Rutgers Transportation Policy Institute, Ac-commodating Pedestrians, downloaded frompolicy.rutgers.edu/tpi/docs/accommodating.pdf, 18 March2005.

95. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Traffic Calming: Road-way Design to Reduce Traffic Speeds and Volumes, 4 June 2004.

96. University of New Hampshire Technology Transfer Cen-ter, On the Road in New Hampshire: Traffic Calming inDurham, NH, Summer 2001.

97. Mike Swift, “Making a Road Better and Less Traveled,”Harford Courant, 22 January 2004.

98. LittletonPlaces.com, About the Project, downloaded fromwww.pps.org/littleton/about, 18 March 2005.

99. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway

Shifting Gears 57

Administration, FY2002 TCSP Grant Awards, downloadedfrom www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/02awards.html, 18 March2005.

100. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI), CyclingImprovements, downloaded from www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm93.htm, 10 May 2005, citing Jennifer Dill and TheresaCarr, “Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S.Cities,” Transportation Research Record 1828, 116-123, 2003.Another study cited by VTPI found that each mile ofbikeway per 100,000 residents increases bicycle commut-ing by 0.075%: Arthur Nelson and David Allen, “If YouBuild Them, Commuters Will Use Them; Cross-SectionalAnalysis of Commuters and Bicycle Facilities,” Transporta-tion Research Record 1578, 79-83, 1997.

101. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Walking and Cy-cling Encouragement, 4 June 2004.

102. Beshka Candelaria, Bike Downtown, personal com-munication 3 November 2005.

103. The Minuteman Bikeway, downloaded fromwww.minutemanbikeway.org/Pages/intro.html, 18 March2005; Farmington Valley Trails Council, Farmington ValleyGreenway, downloaded from www.fvgreenway.org, 18 March2005; and East Bay Bike Path, downloaded fromwww.eastbaybikepath.com, 18 March 2005.

104. MassBike, Bicycle Advocacy Group Says Boston MustTake Steps to Become Bicycle-Friendly, following its “Worst”Ranking by National Magazine (press release), 21 January1999.

105. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Bike/Transit Inte-gration, 7 June 2004.

106. Sportworks, Bike Rack for Buses, downloaded fromwww.bicycleracks.com/sbindex.asp, 18 March 2005.

107. MassBike, MassBike Win: MBTA Announces Bike Rackson Buses Program (press release), 22 September 2005.

108. City of Saco, Maine, Saco Bicycle and Pedestrian Mas-ter Plan, September 2004.

109. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1995 NationalPersonal Transportation Survey, as cited in Victoria Trans-port Policy Institute, Land Use Impacts on Transport: HowLand Use Patterns Affect Travel Behavior, 9 July 2004.

110. Hartford Preservation Alliance, 2002 Jeffery S. CzoporPreservation Week Awards, downloaded fromwww.hartfordpreservation.org/czopor2002.html, 10 March2005.

111. Citigroup, Citigroup Companies Pledge $7.4 Millionto Hartford Housing Revitalization Project (press release), 4November 1999.

112. See note 110.

113. Information on this development from John Caulo,Dartmouth Real Estate Office, personal communication,15 March 2005 and New Hampshire Housing Finance Au-thority, Housing Solutions for New Hampshire Handbook,downloaded from www.nhhfa.org/frd_housingsolutions.htm, 10 March 2005.

114. Bennet Heart, et al, Conservation Law Foundationand Vermont Forum on Sprawl, Community Rules: A NewEngland Guide to Smart Growth Strategies, 2002.

115. Ayer Lofts, Condominiums, and Art Gallery, downloadedfrom ayerlofts.com, 10 March 2005.

116. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New England,Land & Community Revitalization, Brownfields: Program Sum-mary & Success Stories, October 2003.

117. Office of Policy and Management, IntergovernmentalPolicy Division, Recommended Conservation and DevelopmentPolicies Plan for Connecticut, 2004-2009, 4 June 2004.

118. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, Personal Incomeand Corporate Excise Tax Credits, downloaded fromwww.dor.state.ma.us/help/guides/abate_amend/personal/is-sues/brownfld.htm, 14 March 2005.

119. See note 114.

120. Drawn from Will Fleissig and Vickie Jacobsen, Con-gress for New Urbanism and the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Smart Scorecard for Development Projects, January2002; Bennet Heart, et al, Conservation Law Foundation andVermont Forum on Sprawl, Community Rules: A New EnglandGuide to Smart Growth Strategies, 2002; and Randall Arendt,“Open Space Zoning: What It Is and Why It Works,” Plan-ning Commissioners Journal, July/August 1992.

121. See note 114.

122. City of Portland, Office of Sustainable Development,Sustainable Technologies & Practices: Global Warming, down-loaded from www.sustainableportland.org/default.asp?sec=stp&pg=glo_home, 22 March 2006.

123. Tom Jackman, Director of Planning, Town of Stowe,personal communication, 16 March 2005.

124. David Scheuer, Retrovest Company, personal commu-nication, 28 March 2005.

125. Retrovest Companies, Our Communities Currently Un-der Development: Our Award-Winning Palisades Village, down-loaded from www.retrovest.com/communities/index.htm, 28March 2005.

126. Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Handbookon the Local Comprehensive Plan, updated 2003.

127. Fleet Bank and Rhode Island Public Expenditures Coun-cil, The Economic Impact of the Housing Crisis on Businesses inRhode Island, 12 March 2004.

128. Nationally, about 72 percent of vehicle-miles traveledoccur on non-commuting trips. In addition, many workersconduct “chained” trips on their way to or from work, for ex-ample, stopping at a child care center or dry cleaner on theway to or from work. A survey of driving habits in Montgom-ery County, Maryland, found that 31 percent of evening com-mute-time trips include a non-work stop. Sources: 72 percentof vehicle-miles traveled: U.S. Department of Transportation,Federal Highway Administration, Summary of Travel Trends:National Household Transportation Survey 2001, December2004. Montgomery County, Maryland study: Ajay Kumar andDavid Levinson, “Chained Trips in Montgomery County,Maryland,” ITE Journal, 17 December 1996.

129. Metro, Travel Behavior Survey for Portland, MultnomahCounty, Oregon, 1994, as cited in California Department ofTransportation, Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study:Factors for Success in California, September 2002.

130. Ibid.

131. Transportation Cooperative Research Program, ResearchResults Digest: Transit Oriented Development and Joint Develop-ment in the United States: A Literature Review, October 2002,38.

58 Shifting Gears

132. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Examplesof Transit-Oriented Development: Davis Square, Somerville,downloaded from www.mbta.com/projects_underway/tod_examples_davis_square.asp, 1 November 2005.

133. James O’Connell, Ahead or Behind the Curve?: Com-pact Mixed-Use Development in Suburban Boston (secondedition), August 2004.

134. Ibid.

135. City of Malden, About Malden: Economic Develop-ment, Residential, downloaded from www.ci.malden.ma.us/about/econres.asp, 16 March 2005.

136. See note 133.

137. Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Develop-ment, Draft Transit-Oriented Development Program Guide-lines, 3 January 2005.

138. Robert W. Burchell, et al., Transit Cooperative Re-search Program, Transportation Research Board, NationalResearch Council, Costs of Sprawl – 2000, National Acad-emies Press, 2002.

139. National Priorities Project, “Recess Is Over!” GrassrootsFactbook: Massachusetts, April 2000.

140. Wieman, Urban Land Institute, as cited in Local Gov-ernment Commission, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, and National Association of Realtors, Creating GreatNeighborhoods: Density in Your Community, 2003.

141. Michigan Land Use Institute, “How Some OtherStates Manage Growth,” Great Lake Bulletin, Spring 1998.

142. Active Living Leadership, Healthy Community Design:Success Stories from State and Local Leaders, December 2004.

143. State of Maine, Municipal Investment Trust Fund,Information and Application Package, received from MikeBaran, Office of Community Development, 10 March2005.

144. Robert Burchell et al, Costs of Sprawl—Revisited, Tran-sit Cooperative Research Program, Federal TransportationAdministration, 1997, 49.

145. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Wa-ter Quality and Waste Management: Septic Systems, What YouNeed to Know, March 1996.

146. Steve McLoughlin, Division of Engineering and Tech-nological Assistance, Maine Department of the Environ-ment, personal communication, 11 March 2005.

147. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, Summary of Travel Trends: NationalHousehold Transportation Survey 2001, December 2004.

148. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Commute Trip Re-duction (CTR), downloaded from www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm9.htm, 13 March 2005.

149. Commute Trip Reduction Task Force, 2003 Report tothe Washington State Legislature, February 2004.

150. Ibid.

151. Washington State Department of Transportation,Commute Trip Reduction Program, downloaded fromwww.wsdo t .wa . gov / tdm/prog r am_summar i e s /ctr_summ.cfm, 13 March 2005.

152. Ibid.

153. CTR worksites compared to statewide average: Wash-ington State Department of Transportation, Commute Trip Re-duction Program, downloaded from www.wsdot.wa.gov/tdm/program_summaries/ctr_summ.cfm, 13 March 2005. Wash-ington compared to other states: Commute Trip ReductionTask Force, 2003 Report to the Washington State Legislature,February 2004.

154. See note 149.

155. Ibid.

156. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,Mass. Rideshare Program, downloaded from www.mass.gov/dep/bwp/daqc/rideshar.htm, 13 March 2005.

157. Jean Stimolo, Executive Director, Rideworks, personalcommunication, 24 March 2005.

158. For more information on each of these, seewww.rideworks.com (New Haven and south-central Connecti-cut), www.metropool.com (Fairfield County, southwest Con-necticut, and New York City), and www.rideshare.com (Hart-ford and eastern Connecticut).

159. Best Workplaces for Commuters, New England’s BestWorkplaces for Commuters, downloaded from www.bwc.gov/campaign/newengland-2005.htm, 4 November 2004.

160. Best Workplaces for Commuters, About Best Workplacesfor Commuters Districts, downloaded from www.bwc.gov/about/districts.htm, 4 November 2005.

161. Best Workplaces for Commuters, Best Workplaces for Com-muters Districts, downloaded from www.bwc.gov/about/dist_list.htm#upper, 4 November 2005; Upper Valley Rideshare,downloaded from www.uppervalleyrideshare.com, 4 Novem-ber 2005.

162. For more information, see GO MAINE:www.gomaine.org, and Vermont Rideshare:www.vermontrideshare.org.

163. Gerrit-Jan Knaap, National Center for Smart GrowthResearch and Education, University of Maryland, Is SmartGrowth in Maryland a Good Model for State Land-Use Reform?,Presented at Rethinking Growth Management: A Symposium,University of Washington, Seattle, 14-15 April 2005.

164. Ibid.

165. “Location-efficient mortgage” is a trademark of the In-stitute for Location Efficiency.

166. MassHousing, Take the T Home Mortgage Program, down-loaded from www.masshousing.com/imageserver/Consumers/TakeTheTBrochure.pdf, 11 May 2005.

167. Tom Norton, MassHousing, personal communication,2 November 2005.

168. Zipcar, Environmental and Community Impact, press re-lease, 2005.

169. U.S. survey data for 1997 estimated that the averagetotal vehicle expenses for a household were $6,278, of which$779 was insurance, or about 12.4 percent. The AmericanAutomobile Association made similar estimates for 2003, find-ing that, for example, the total annual cost of driving a minivan12,500 miles was $7,234, of which $873, or 12.1 percent, wasfor insurance. Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997 Con-sumer Expenditure Survey, www.bls.gov; American AutomobileAssociation, Your Driving Costs 2003, www.aaamissouri.com/news/library/drivingcost, based on data from Runzheimer In-ternational as reported in Table 1; Victoria Transport Policy

Shifting Gears 59

Institute, TDM Encyclopedia: The Cost of Driving,www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm82.htm, downloaded 11 May 2005.

170. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, TDM Encyclope-dia: Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance, www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm, citing Greig Harvey and Elizabeth Deakin,“The STEP Analysis Package: Description and ApplicationExamples,” Appendix B in U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Technical Methods for Analyzing Pricing Measures toReduce Transportation Emissions, 1998.

171. Ibid.

172. Based on Insurance Information Institute, Facts andStatistics: The Rising Cost of Auto Insurance, downloaded fromwww.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/content.print/, 29October 2003.

173. Leslie Kolleda, Progressive Insurance, personal com-munication, 30 March 2005.

174. Progressive Insurance, Innovative Auto Insurance Dis-count Program to be Available to 5,000 Minnesotans, pressrelease, 8 August 2004. Technologies such as the TripSensorhave raised legitimate privacy concerns that should be ad-dressed by policy-makers. However, the use of in-car tripmonitors like TripSensor is not necessary for the success ofa cents-per-mile insurance program. Mandatory or volun-tary forms of odometer reporting, with or without verifica-tion, could also support the cents-per-mile concept.

175. OnStar, Current Offers, downloaded fromwww.onstargm.com/promo/html/promo_mileage.htm, 11May 2005.

176. In the U.K., Norwich-Union began a two-year pilotproject to collect data to analyze the potential impacts ofoffering per-mile insurance. In South Africa, NedBank of-fers a “Pay per K” motor insurance policy, with monthlypremiums calculated in part based on the number of kilo-meters driven the previous month. Odometer readings areverified each time the customer purchases gas, with the in-formation communicated to the company via use of a creditcard. Source: Nedbank website, www.nedbank.com/website/content/products/product_overview.asp?productid=331.

177. Oregon Environmental Council, FAQ Sheet, HB2043:“Pay-As-You-Drive” Auto Insurance, undated; ChrisHagerbaumer, Oregon Environmental Council, Testimonybefore the Senate Revenue Committee on HB2043-A, 14 May2003; Jan Vitus, Oregon Insurance Division, personal com-munication, 29 March 2005.

178. Texas Office of House Bill Analysis, HBA-NRS H.B.4577 Bill Analysis, 8 August 2001; Patrick Butler, NOWInsurance Project, personal communication, 4 April 2005.

179. CLF Ventures, Letter to Massachusetts InsuranceCommissioner Julianne Bowler, 11 June 2004; LauraCaputo, CLF Ventures, personal communication, 14 April2005. In Massachusetts, the two databases are the Com-monwealth Automobile Reinsurance (CAR) data and theRegistry of Motor Vehicle (RMV) safety inspection data.

180. Michelle White, University of California-San Diego,“The ‘Arms Race’ on American Roads: The Effect of SportUtility Vehicles and Pickup Trucks on Traffic Safety,” Jour-nal of Law and Economics 47, 333-355, October 2004.

181. Danny Hakim, “Regulators Seek Ways to MakeS.U.V.’s Safer,” New York Times, 30 January 2003.

182. Danny Hakim, “Once World Leader in Traffic Safety,

U.S. Drops to No. 9,” New York Times, 27 November 2003.

183. Marc Ross and Tom Wenzel, An Analysis of Traffic Deathsby Vehicle Type and Model, U.S. Department of Energy andAmerican Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, March2002.

184.Keith Bradsher, High and Mighty: SUVs – The World’sMost Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way, NewYork: Perseus Books Group, 2002, 198-204.

185. Ibid., 205.

186. Ibid., 217.

187. Commute Solutions, Santa Cruz County Regional Trans-portation Commission, The True Cost of Driving, undated,available at www.commutesolutions.org.

188. Based on data for a Chevrolet Cavalier LS from Ameri-can Automobile Association, Your Driving Costs 2003, down-loaded from www.aaamissouri.com/news/library/drivingcost/driving.html, 11 May 2005.

189. Erin Vaca and J. Richard Kuzmyak, et al, “Parking Pric-ing and Fees,” Chapter 13 in Traveler Response to Transporta-tion System Changes, Transportation Research Board, NationalResearch Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2005, 13-5.

190. Ibid., 13-4.

191. Ibid., 13-5.

192. Ibid., 13-15, citing Comsis Corporation, Task 2 WorkingPaper: An Examination of Cost/Benefit and Other Decision Fac-tors Used in Design of Employer-Based TDM Programs, TCRPProject B-4, unpublished research findings, TransportationResearch Board, Washington, DC, 1994.

193. Ibid., 13-5.

194. Ibid., 13-5.

195. Ibid., 13-22 - 13-23.

196. Ibid., 13-18, citing D. Shoup, California Air ResourcesBoard, Research Division, Evaluating the Effects of Parking CashOut: Eight Case Studies, 1997.

197. Ibid.

198. City of Cambridge ordinances, Section 10.18.050, Park-ing and Transportation Demand Management Plans.

199. City of Cambridge, 2004 Annual Report, Cambridge Cli-mate Protection Action Committee, City of Cambridge, undated,16.

200. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration, Highway Statistics 2003, December 2004, tableHF-10.

201. Jenny B. Wahl, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Oil Slick-ers: How Petroleum Benefits at the Taxpayers’ Expense, August1996.

202. For more on how to appropriately value the various costsand benefits of transportation services in the context of least-cost planning, see Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Evaluat-ing Impacts and Problems, downloaded from www.vtpi.org/documents/evaluation.php, 4 November 2005.

203. Puget Sound Regional Council, The 2001 Least-Cost Plan-ning Analysis, Supplemental Technical Appendix 11, Metropoli-tan Transportation Plan Alternatives Analysis and Draft Envi-ronmental Impact Statement, 26 October 2000.

60 Shifting Gears

204 .Transportation and Community and System Preser-vation Pilot Program, Federal Highway Administration,Land Use and Transportation Modeling Tools-Destination2030, Puget Sound Region, Washington, downloaded fromwww.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/puget.html, 25 March 2005.

205. See note 203.

206. See note 204.

207. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Cli-mate Protection Plan, Spring 2004.

208. Sonia Hamel, Executive Office of CommonwealthDevelopment, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, personalcommunication, 8 April 2005.

209. Smart Communities Network, U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, SensibleTransportation Policy Act, downloaded fromwww.sustainable.doe.gov/codes/mainest.shtml, 28 March2005.

210. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Departmentof Transportation, Survey of State Funding for Public Trans-portation, 2003.

211. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal TransitAdministration FY 2005 Budget in Brief, downloaded fromwww.dot.gov/bib2005/TOC.html, 23 March 2005.

212. Federal Transit Administration, Annual Report on NewStarts 2003, downloaded from www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2004/ns7nsallocations.html, 1 April 2005.

213. Ibid.

214. Federal Transit Administration, Annual Report on NewStarts 2003, downloaded from www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2004/appendixatoc.html, 1 April 2005; andTrini Brassard, Public Transit Administrator, Vermont De-partment of Transportation, personal communication, 8April 2005.

215. B. McCann, R. Kienitz, and B. DeLille, Surface Trans-portation Policy Project, Changing Direction: Federal Trans-portation Spending in the 1990’s, March 2000.

216. Federal Transit Administration, Flexible Funds, down-loaded from www.fta.dot.gov/library/reference/statsum03/flexfund.html, 1 April 2005.

217. Federal Transit Administration, Statistical Summary2003, downloaded from www.fta.dot.gov/library/reference/statsum03/t52.html, 23 March 2005. The Vermont com-muter rail project has since been discontinued, but couldbe revived in the future.

218. National Transportation Enhancements Clearing-house, National TE Project Lists, downloaded fromwww.enhancements.org/projectlist.asp, 1 April 2005.

219. Federal Highway Administration, FY 2003 TCSPProject Conference Report Amounts, downloaded fromwww.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/fy03pcra.htm, 1 April 2005.

220. Trini Brassard, Public Transit Administrator, VermontAgency of Transportation, personal communication, 8 April2005.

221. Based on comparison between flexible funds transfersto Federal Transit Administration from U.S. Departmentof Transportation (Federal Transit Administration, FY1992-FY2004 Flexible Funds Transfers by STP, CMAQ and Other,downloaded from www.fta.dot.gov/transit_data_info/

reports_publications/publications/statistical_summaries/16702_ENG_HTML.htm, 3 March 2006) and apportion-ment of federal funds administered by the Federal High-way Administration from U.S. Department of Transporta-tion (Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statisticsseries of reports, 1997 through 2003, table FA-4). Onlyfunds from STP and CMAQ were included in the com-parison. Assumes that 80 percent of STP funds are flexible.

222. Ibid.

223. Robert Puentes, Flexible Funding for Transit: Who UsesIt?, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropoli-tan Policy, May 2000.

224. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-way Administration, Federal-Aid Highway Program Fund-ing for Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs, down-loaded from www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm. “Flexible funds” includes CMAQ and STPfunding.

225. Vermont Agency of Transportation, 2004 Annual Re-port, 2004.

226. Ibid.

227. Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition, A ShortGuide to Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding in Vermont, down-loaded from www.vtbikeped.org/what/positions/funding.htm, 28 March 2005.

228. Ibid.

229. League of American Bicyclists, Bicycle Friendly Com-munities, downloaded from www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/list.htm, 3 November 2005.

230. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Department ofTransportation, Survey of State Funding for Public Transpor-tation, 2003.

231. New Hampshire Public Radio, “Top Court Rules GasTax Just for Highways,” 19 April 2004.

232. See note 230.

233. Based on monthly estimates of vehicle-miles traveledfrom Federal Highway Administration, Traffic VolumeTrends, January 2004 through December 2005, downloadedfrom www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.htm, 28 Octo-ber 2005 and 28 February 2006.

234. Based on Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Vol-ume Trends, October 2005 and U.S. Department of En-ergy, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Regular AllFormulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon), down-loaded from tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_rt_usw.htm, 2 March 2006.

235. American Public Transportation Association, TransitRidership Report: Third Quarter 2005, downloaded fromwww.apta.com/research/stats/ridershp/riderep/documents/05q3cvr.pdf, 2 March 2006.

236. Based on Gasoline-Price Elasticity, a spreadsheet pro-duced by Charles Komanoff and obtained from the VictoriaTransport Policy Institute at www.vtpi.org, 2 November2005.

237. See Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory, Up-dated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Results of FuelEthanol, PowerPoint presentation to the 15th InternationalSymposium on Alcohol Fuels, 26-28 September 2005.

The New England Climate Coalition

The New England Climate Coalition (NECC) is a coalition of state and local environmental,public health, municipal and religious organizations concerned about the effects of globalwarming. NECC supports reductions in emissions of global warming gases sufficient to protectthe region’s environment and economy from the dangers posed by global warming.

For more information about NECC visit our web site at www.newenglandclimate.org, orcontact the following NECC founding organizations:

Connecticut• Clean Water Fund, 645 Farmington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Hartford, CT

06105, 860-232-6232, www.cleanwateraction.org/ct

• ConnPIRG Education Fund, 198 Park Road, 2nd Floor, West Hartford, CT

06119, 860-233-7554, www.connpirg.org

Maine• Natural Resources Council of Maine, 3 Wade Street, Augusta, ME 04330,

207-622-3101, www.maineenvironment.org

• Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, 39 Exchange St., #301,

Portland, ME 04101, 207-253-1965, www.environmentmaine.org

Massachusetts• Clean Water Fund, 262 Washington St., Room 301, Boston, MA 02108,

617-338-8131, www.cleanwateraction.org/ma

• MASSPIRG Education Fund, 44 Winter Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA

02108, 617-292-4800, www.masspirg.org

• Massachusetts Climate Action Network, 86 Milton St., Arlington, MA

02474, 781-643-5911, www.massclimateaction.org

New Hampshire• Clean Water Fund, 163 Court St., Portsmouth, NH 03801, 603-430-9565,

www.cleanwateraction.org/nh

• NHPIRG Education Fund, 30 S. Main St., Suite 101, Concord, NH 03301,

603-229-3222, www.nhpirg.org

Rhode Island• Clean Water Fund, 741 Westminster St., Providence, RI 02903,

401-331-6972, www.cleanwateraction.org/ri

• RIPIRG Education Fund, 11 South Angell Street, #337, Providence, RI

02906, 401-421-6578, www.ripirg.org

Vermont• Vermont Public Interest Research & Education Fund, 141 Main St.,

Suite 6, Montpelier, VT 05602, 802-223-5221, www.vpirg.org