In this article I analyze transportation planning in the Genesee-Finger Lakes region through the lens of the state’s climate legislation. My intent is not to criticize the people who determine how transportation dollars are spent, but to show how a system of decision making no longer fits with the realities of climate change. I believe we live in a very special place, and I see opportunities to improve our place and to be an example to other municipalities.
New York’s nation-leading climate law was signed on July 18, 2019. Known as the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), Article 75 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law requires emissions reductions in absolute terms from 1990 levels of 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050 in all sectors of the economy [emphasis mine]. The CLCPA requires that “all state agencies shall promulgate regulations to contribute to achieving the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits established in article 75 of the environmental conservation law”. Agencies include, among many others, the department of transportation, the department of state, and the department of health. These three have influence over transportation modes, but DOT is the primary actor.
In our 9-county Genesee-Finger Lakes region, the organization responsible for transportation policy, planning, and investment decision making is the Genesee Transportation Council (GTC). The GTC is our federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Every metropolitan area with a population of over 50,000 must have a designated MPO to qualify for the receipt of federal highway and transit funds.[1]
The GTC oversees planning and funding for astonishingly high numbers of vehicle miles traveled and miles of roadway. According to its Citizen’s Guide to Transportation Planning in the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region, published in 2010, drivers in the region were then traveling over 30 million vehicle miles daily(!) on 12,500 miles of roadways, and transit riders were making over 41,000 daily trips.[2] The highway and bridge network consists of nearly 27,000 lane miles and 1,594 bridges, according to the GTC’s current Long Range Transportation Plan (pg.30).
Spending plans are laid out in a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a list of upcoming transportation projects covering a period of at least four years. Per the GTC’s website “Each MPO is required, under 49 U.S.C. 5303(j), to develop a TIP… in cooperation with the state and public transit providers. The TIP should include capital and non-capital surface transportation projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other transportation enhancements, and safety projects. The TIP should include all regionally significant projects receiving FHWA or FTA funds, or for which FHWA or FTA approval is required, in addition to non-federally funded projects that are consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The TIP must be fiscally constrained, meaning that the total amount of funds programmed in the TIP must not exceed the projected total amount of funds reasonably expected to be available to the region for that period”.[3] Note: the TIP does not currently appear online.
“Limitless” feels like a good descriptor for the amount of money overseen by the GTC. The present TIP sets spending for the current four-year period at $410 million dollars, this for a region of barely 1.2 million people. The Long-Range Transportation Plan, which sets priorities out to the year 2045, shows a tally of $10.77 billion, as follows:[4]
Who are the people responsible for this spending?
The GTC is governed by a board of 27 members who are elected officials from the nine counties of the region and the City of Rochester, and representatives of other local, regional, state, and federal agencies. Board officers are elected from among the members. The members in 2021 are:
Not that it is anyone’s fault, but few, if any, of the Council’s local members would be expected to have expertise in transportation, public health and environmental impacts. Elected officials are in office for broader reasons and just happen to become key decisionmakers on transportation and related issues due to the structure of the Council. And if they rely on their organization’s staff for expertise, how much knowledge exists at that level, especially in the outer counties?
It appears that the voting members each have equal standing, regardless of the size of their constituency. True, the City and County combine for one-third of the membership, but Monroe County has 61% of the regional population, with the next highest in Ontario County at 9%. The other 30% is spread over a vast land area, accessible only by private vehicle. A key question is: Why would the representatives of these outlying counties support transit or active transportation?
How projects are chosen
Once a proposed project is determined eligible for federal funding, it is evaluated against the criteria listed below. The values to the right represent scores attainable for each criterion.
Read these criteria with this thought: why wouldn’t you give each one a top score? It’s like getting good service at a restaurant: there’s no downside to a perfect score unless you want to intentionally send a message. The only distinction that I see on this list is the mode of transportation. So, if you want to focus funding of roadways in your suburban or rural district, give low scores to transit and active transportation. [My thoughts are in italics.]
Common to All Projects
Safety
- Improve the safety of the existing transportation system 0 to 20
This is the only criterium with a high score of 20, versus a 5 or 10, and who wouldn’t give it a top score? Safety is immeasurable: we never consider ourselves and loved ones safe enough, so all scorers will default to a 20. In our society, the message this sends is that there is no limit to spending on roadways. Indeed, vehicular crashes look horrific and often are, due to the (increasing) size and speed of the vehicles. But we’ll never be able to make roadways safe enough unless there are fewer vehicles, or vehicles are used less, or if control is taken away from the drivers. Measures to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will always be far cheaper than building roads for infinite VMT.
There’s a real perverseness in where money is spent on safety. Pedestrians get yellow signs at crosswalks (the TIP shows many more of these coming to a neighborhood near you). The problem is that signage eventually melds into the background clutter and loses its effectiveness. See, for example, Lake Avenue in Rochester, between Lyell Avenue and Ridge Road. Traverse this in the rain sometime and see how safe it feels.
Conversely, drivers get multimillion dollar road “improvements”. See for example the $172 million to rebuild the I-490/I-390 interchange. From the project design report, the Primary Project Needs were to reduce accident-related congestion, address the deteriorated condition of the Buffalo Road bridge and the pavement condition throughout, and, OH! to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Lyell Avenue. (Advice from someone who knows: don’t try to walk or ride Lyell Avenue near I-390).
Mobility
- Improve the efficiency and reliability of the existing transportation system 0 to 10
- Promote travel alternatives that are available to all persons regardless of age, physical or mental ability, and/or income 0 to 10
Community & Economic Development
- Enhance the region’s attractiveness to new and existing businesses 0 to 5
- Has support from specific local, regional, or state land use, economic, housing, or other policies 0 to 5
- Support, enhance, or improve regional food system stability 0 to 5
System Continuity & Optimization
- Support corridor-level/multi-modal solutions, especially across jurisdictional boundaries 0 to 10
- Advance the recommendation(s) of a UPWP study or other transportation plan consistent with LRTP 2040 0 to 5
- Improve the resiliency of the system to natural and/or man-made disruptions 0 to 5
Environment
- Encourage the efficient use of non-renewable energy sources and/or promote renewable alternatives 0 to 5
- Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and/or criteria pollutants 0 to 5
A possible total of 10 points to save humanity from destruction.
Fiscal Responsibility
- Minimize lifetime maintenance and user costs 0 to 5
- Provide non-federal match beyond the required amount 0 to 5
- Employ innovative funding/financing/partnerships that reflect the scope of interests served 0 to 5
Applicable to Specific Mode
Highway and Bridge
- Facility Condition Score 0 to 10
- Incorporate transit-supportive design elements 0 to 5
- Incorporate bicycle-supportive design elements 0 to 5
- Incorporate pedestrian-supportive design elements 0 to 5
- Incorporate goods movement-supportive design elements 0 to 5
Public Transportation
- Contribute to operating cost efficiencies 0 to 10
- Improve on-time performance 0 to 5
- Maximize transit load factors 0 to 5
- Contribute to cost-effective maintenance of existing capital assets 0 to 5
- Improve access to/from employment, education, services, and/or community facilities 0 to 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian
- Decrease gaps in the core multi-use trails network or increase the amount of federal-aid roads with complete sidewalks 0 to 10
- Improve access to/from employment, education, services, and/or community facilities 0 to 5
- Employ required/accepted design guidance and standards 0 to 5
- Contribute to cost-effective maintenance of existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities 0 to 5
- Effectively connect with existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities 0 to 5
System Management and Operations
- Reduce travel times on major roadways 0 to 10
- Reduce incident clearance times 0 to 10
- Increase the productivity of regional transportation agencies/providers (e.g., cost savings, time savings, etc.) 0 to 5
- Support or advance existing and/or proposed ITS elements 0 to 5
Goods Movement
- Increase efficiency and reliability for freight 0 to 10
- Improve access to freight-intensive businesses that support the local and regional economies
0 to 10
- Mitigate freight impacts to the community and environment 0 to 5
- Supports the creation or expansion of freight-intensive businesses and associated employment 0 to 5
Here are a few questions that could help clarify how the system works, in a random order:
- How was the makeup of the Council determined?
- Who or what developed the criteria and determined the scoring system?
- Does each member privately score each item, relying on their own wisdom and influences, or is there an organization behind each member to help with scoring?
- Is each criterion debated in open session?
- Who determined which criteria get up to 20 points versus 5?
- How are the criteria—and their point allocations– link to the LRTP?
- Are the allocations changed for each LRTP to reflect the priorities?
- This is a huge list of criteria: how does anything get prioritized?
- Does high support for low-cost issue like walking and cycling bring a high percentage of funding?
- How influential are the state and federal agencies?
- Are decisions made based on who shows up to meetings?
- Are Council staff the true decision makers?
Where is the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in the plan?
As noted above, the law that should be governing transportation planning was signed by the Governor on July 18, 2019. However, the GTC’s 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan that was adopted nearly two years later (June 22, 2021) does not mention the climate law and sets no emissions targets. Given the massive emission reductions of 40% by 2030 and 85% by 2050 over 1990 levels, no planning effort can delay immediate action. While the LRTP is nicely written, illustrated, and presented (kudos to the team that put this together), it reads like a plan from ages before most people began to accept climate change as more than a hoax.
This is what our state energy agency says we need to be doing, so it’s not as if the GTC doesn’t have guidance:
The LRTP does show an awareness of emissions, as it notes at the end of the plan on pg.135 of 137: “For LRTP 2045 greenhouse gas emissions along with on-road direct energy usage were calculated for the Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) using the latest EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator. Using 2017 data provided by NYSDOT related to vehicle type, age distribution, fuel formulation, and other factors, on-road direct energy usage was calculated at 137,785 million Btu per day. This usage corresponds to 10,557 metric tons per day of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions calculated by quantifying carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions and adjusting by the corresponding global warming potential factor of each contributing pollutant.” [emphasis added]
And it’s not that the public doesn’t care. During a public comment period mentioned on pg.118, the public was asked to pick up to five priorities from a list of 78(!). “Of the 78, 74 were identified by at least one individual as a priority. The recommendation most identified as a priority was Climate Change and Hazard Impacts, which was identified by fully three-fifths of all participants.”
One would expect that a section titled Sustainability and Resilience (pg.101) would be all about the CLCPA, but no. The first paragraph shows that the focus of these efforts will be the latter of the two: resilience. “Minimizing disruptive impacts of climate change and hazard events on transportation infrastructure and services is key to safeguarding the lives and property of the traveling public. Minimization involves protecting federal-aid transportation investment, ensuring supply chain continuity, and preserving natural and community resources. Recommendations in the Sustainability and Resilience category focus on actions to prevent hazards from damaging assets and disrupting services. They seek to protect infrastructure from anticipated hazard impacts and ensure that impacted systems and structures have redundant elements to avoid catastrophic failure. Finally, the recommendations consider how post-hazard recovery activities, including both short-term response and long-term restoration, can be integrated into the transportation planning process”. This statement is foretold on Pg.58, which states a need to adapt the transportation system to the ravages of extreme weather, primarily flooding.
Indeed, the second half of the CLCPA is community protection, which addresses concerns with the impacts of storms and heavy rainfall. But the LRTP ignores the first part, where attention could help limit the need for the second part.
On the sustainability side of the Sustainability and Resilience section, the stated choices are to promote alternative fuels and electricity, stormwater management (huh?) and the promotion of infill development (this section touts the redevelopment of the Inner Loop East). There is absolutely no mention of reducing vehicle miles traveled or any other way to get people out of cars. It appears that the goal here is to maintain the status quo, but perhaps using a bit less gasoline.
And then there’s this, on pg.68: “Fossil fuel consumption is a major contributor to air pollution and climate change. Increasing the share of public transit and active transportation as primary modes is the most direct and effective way to realize emissions reductions.” In other words, put the burden of reducing emissions on low-income, urban neighborhoods while 82% of people drive to work alone.
Where does active transportation appear? In a “What we heard” section about results of an online survey (pg.54): “The majority of respondents stated that maintaining existing roads and bridges is the top priority now and over the next 25 years. An expansion of bicycling and pedestrian options was the next highest priority.” There is no mention of the number of respondents. Then, in a section titled Health and Safety (Pg.74), there is mention of some benefits of bicycling, walking, trails, and complete streets. There is no mention of climate change as a health concern.
My message is that the CLCPA is our tool to force the GTC to fully embrace active transportation.
END
[1] The planning process for these funds is jointly administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as set forth in 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 23 U.S.C. 134.
[2] On a national level, driving miles increased nearly 10% since the Citizen’s Guide was published in 2010, per the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics. While it could be assumed that that same percentage increase applies here, because our 9-county region lost 20,000 residents over that period according to the 2020 Census, let us assume that we’re holding steady around that 30M mark.
[3] The preliminary fiscally constrained program (Draft 2020-2024 TIP) was issued for a 30-day public review (May 10 – June 10, 2019) including four public meetings in various locations within the MPA. Two (2) written and zero (0) verbal comments were received during this outreach.
The two comments were from Reconnect Rochester and Bill Collins, a Reconnect board member. Think about this!
[4] Pg. 126. The LRTP 2045 was adopted by the GTC Board on June 10, 2021.
