Welcome to Newton’s first (to our knowledge) virtual Aldermanic Candidates Forum, on Newton’s Transportation Sustainability. Background, context, and ground rules can be found here.
Below are three questions for responses by aldermanic candidates in contested races only:
- 1.9 million vehicle miles are driven each day in Newton, producing congestion, pollution, and nearly a third of Newton’s greenhouse gas emissions. What role do you see that non-vehicular transportation (e.g. walking, biking, etc.) should play in reducing these problems and what specific policies and priorities would you support to address this issue and what specific targets would you set by when?
- How would you define “complete streets” as a transportation policy for Newton? Would you advocate for policy requiring all projects in Newton which impact transportation be funded, planned, designed, and built and maintained in compliance with the complete streets policies as defined, e.g., here, prior to awarding contracts for any part of the project?
- Development projects often require transportation mitigation funds. Would you support efforts to equitably apportion transportation-related investments that result from new development projects, such that:
a) At least 50% of transportation mitigation funding is allocated to improving transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility at and to the project site, or
b) That these funds are deposited in a “sustainable transportation fund” such that the city can improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility throughout the city?
Posting here on behalf of Frank Wolpe (candidate for Ward 8):
“Nathan,
My answers are as follows:
1. QUESTION – 1.9 million vehicle miles are driven each day in Newton, producing congestion, pollution, and nearly a third of Newton’s greenhouse gas emissions. What role do you see that non-vehicular transportation (e.g. walking, biking, etc.) should play in reducing these problems and what specific policies and priorities would you support to address this issue and what specific targets would you set by when?
ANSWER – Non-vehicular transportation, like walking or bike riding, is an option available to those who choose healthier lifestyles; and it should also be made available to those who, for one reason or another, do not drive an automobile. Bicycle lanes, or at least wider lanes, can be useful on busy roads to ensure safety for both the bike rider and the driver. Sidewalks with curb ramps should be required; and pedestrian trails for joggers and dog walkers with space available would be helpful. Elevated cross-walks are another idea that deserves revisiting for walker safety. Obviously, well paved sidewalks are indispensible for disabled persons and older residents.
Of course, nothing much happens without adequate funding; and that will be a challenge for Newton. More than many cities, we will be facing enormous budget constraints because of our unfunded liability of over $1Billion, and climbing, so efforts should be ongoing to secure Federal funding. A formal written policy is essential; and it should be written and rewritten annually with specific projects proposed and a timetable for their execution. My highest safety priorities would be to: (1) timely repair all winter potholes for bikers, drivers and walkers; and (2) fix all broken sidewalks, many of which are unsafe for human traffic.
2. QUESTION: How would you define “complete streets” as a transportation policy for Newton? Would you advocate for policy requiring all projects in Newton which impact transportation be funded, planned, designed, and built and maintained in compliance with the complete streets policies as defined, e.g., here, prior to awarding contracts for any part of the project?
ANSWER – I would define it as it is defined on the attachment to this questionnaire. What’s more, I find the following language quite appropriate to our circumstances in Newton. It reads as follows:
“Complete Streets are particularly prudent when more communities are tightening their budgets and looking to ensure long-term benefits from investments. An existing transportation budget can incorporate Complete Streets projects with little to no additional funding, accomplished through re-prioritizing projects and allocating funds to projects that improve overall mobility. Many of the ways to create more complete roadways are low cost, fast to implement, and high impact. Building more sidewalks and striping bike lanes has been shown to create more jobs than traditional car-focused transportation projects.”
3. QUESTION – Development projects often require transportation mitigation funds. Would you support efforts to equitably apportion transportation-related investments that result from new development projects, such that:
a) At least 50% of transportation mitigation funding is allocated to improving transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility at and to the project site, or
b) That these funds are deposited in a “sustainable transportation fund” such that the city can improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility throughout the city?
ANSWER – As I understand the question, it refers to The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, which is a federally-funded program of surface transportation improvements designed to improve air quality and mitigate congestion. Jointly administered by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the CMAQ program was created in 1991 and reauthorized most recently in 2012 under MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century). CMAQ funds are apportioned annually to each State according to the severity of its air quality problems.
I agree with and support the CMAQ program and the 50% allocation guideline because it provides a flexible funding source to local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Sincerely,
Frank
Frank Wolpe, Esq.
Candidate for Ward 8, Alderman at Large
City of Newton, MA 02459
Cell 339-225-1970
http://www.frankwolpe.com
https://www.facebook.com/frank.wolpe
Posting here on behalf of Alderman Jim Cote (Ward 3 Candidate):
(I wrote up his comments based on a phone call, and Ald. Cote subsequently approved the following text. Also note that these comments reflect his general perspective and were not made in response specifically to the 3 questions posted above.)
“Perspectives on complete streets by Alderman Cote
Alderman Cote expressed enthusiastic support for the principles of Complete Streets to guide Newton’s transportation future. At the same time, he qualified his support with an overriding concern for safety, particularly for Newton’s most vulnerable users, including children, seniors, and mobility-impaired. Regarding biking, it is “not the way it used to be” in Newton, in regard to safety, and Ald. Cote singled out as a particular area of concern a lack of education and awareness of basic rules of the road that endanger bicyclists. For example, he has heard from motorists who, having been issued a ticket, were only then made aware that parking in a bike lane is prohibited.
Such examples of a basic lack of knowledge and awareness lead Ald. Cote to his perspective that a key element in improving bike safety in Newton involves education and communication. An example for bike safety may be the successful campaigns promoting motorcycle safety, with ubiquitous messaging to both motorcyclists and motor vehicle drivers. He pointed to a need for more education in our schools on biking and walking safety, and called out Newton’s Safe Routes to School Program specifically as a platform for education that should continue to be promoted. Both the city and ‘bottom up’ awareness campaigns from community groups like Bike Newton can be effective in raising this awareness.
Ald. Cote said that biking and walking should be encouraged in Newton for many reasons, including the benefits of physical activity for health, and reduction in traffic congestion, for example in school drop-off zones.
Finally, Ald. Cote suggested that Newton can be opportunistic about implementation of complete streets and upcoming projects. For example, whatever shape an Austin Street Project may take, can the road re-design include a bike lane implemented along Walnut Street to make biking safe along its length?”
Posting here on behalf of Alderman Rick Lipof (Ward 8 candidate).
(I wrote up his comments based on a phone call, and Ald. Lipof subsequently approved the following text. Also note that these comments reflect his general perspective and were not made in response specifically to the 3 questions posted above.)
“Perspectives on Complete Streets by Alderman Lipof
Alderman Lipof expressed serious concern about the safety of biking in Newton, and reservations about Newton’s ability to become a safe city for biking in the near term and therefore whether biking can responsibly be encouraged at this time. This perspective was shaped by Ald. Lipof’s observations from growing up in Newton and seeing it become less and less bike friendly over the years. As a kid, Ald. Lipof and friends rode bikes in Newton; the relatively mild traffic allowed it. Today he observes that the volume and speed of traffic throughout Newton makes biking a very risky activity. As an Alderman, he is concerned for the safety of all residents who might choose to bike; as a parent, he is unfortunately unable to encourage everyday cycling like to go to school. Therefore, Ald. Lipof and his family mainly restrict biking to recreational cycling on vacations in quiet rural areas.
Ald. Lipof would very much support Newton becoming a bike friendly city, but has a difficult time seeing how it can be done. Newton is an old city with many narrow streets, unlike newer cities, for example, in some western states. Even if some stretches of roadway could include bike facilities like bike lanes, Ald. Lipof worries about what happens when the bike lane ends: lack of connectivity can actually induce bicyclists into a false sense of safety and literally direct them toward danger.
Therefore, Ald. Lipof was very ambivalent about the concept of complete streets. On the one hand, complete streets can’t mean that bike lanes can go on each and every road in Newton because of its existing old network with narrow lanes in places. On the other hand, without a complete network of bike facilities, Newton will remain only as safe as its most dangerous gaps. Ald. Lipof expressed interest in how older cities in Europe, like throughout Holland and Denmark, have managed to build effective and comprehensive bike facilities within the context of their old roadway infrastructure. He suggested that a productive first step toward considering how Bike Newton can become a bike safe community could involve a delegation of Newton municipal leaders and transportation officials (funded independently of city funds) visiting exemplary bikeable communities in one or more cities with similar roadway challenges as Newton, to learn best engineering, policy, and community engagement practices that could be considered for Newton.
This is an important question that unfortunately, hasn’t been brought up at any of the forums I attended. I met with Nathan and we discussed the topic and my views. They are as follows:
1. The traffic situation in Newton is challenging requiring our best efforts to promote mode changes (from car to bike/walk) wherever possible. I see 4 keys to making this work:
– Infrastructure: Pursuing complete streets approaches so we are not only filling potholes and striping for bike lanes so people feel safe biking, but also touching streets once vs. many times thereby making our tax dollars stretch further
– Zoning: Expedite zoning reform and encourage smarter increased density in village centers to take advantage of public transit vs. building projects miles from our centers which exacerbates traffic pressure
– Education: Many people see the new bike lanes, but don’t know how to use them. Seriously. They are supposed to promote safety but many view them as dangerous, so education is important.
– In-house experts: We need to continue to leverage the smarts of our TAG group as well as our Safe Routes to School group. Traffic is often at its worst as parents drop kids off at school. We need more safe routes to school ideas, promotion, and adoption.
2. Complete Streets is an approach that helps our tax dollars go further and that make our streets far safer and more usable. In coordination with other departments in the City, as well as utilities, it theoretically means the DPW would touch streets once to improve the entire street (roadway, curbing, sidewalk, trees, sewers, bike lanes, wires) at one time vs. digging it up multiple times. I like this approach.
3. I support the idea of mitigation funds dedicated to transportation. As a forward looking City, we need to be encourage various modes of transportation, cleaner ways of travel, and part of this is encouraging developers to play their part in helping promote our vision. As development projects often touch infrastructure, it is a great opportunity to address all concerns of congestion in the development area, and a mutually agreed upon fund to do this makes sense.
Thanks to the Bike Newton Steering Committee, Village 14 and Nathan Phillips for providing this unique forum for transportation issues. Here are my responses:*
We need strong environmental and transportation advocates on the City Council to address these issues. A couple of years ago, Ald. Crossley and I pushed through a resolution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which was greeted with surprisingly strong resistance. After much deliberation, a number of aldermen stepped outside the rail rather than vote against it. The City Council needs more not fewer members who “get it” when it comes to the impact of our transportation policy on our natural environment as well as other quality of life issues.
As noted elsewhere, Newton has the dubious distinction of the highest car ownership and use of cities over 50,000 population. A bike/pedestrian-friendly transportation policy is absolutely essential, as are other alternatives to car-ownership. Progressive local and regional planning is also key. These are my priorities:
1. A Comprehensive Plan, Village Plans, and a citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan that provide a blueprint for connecting safe, accessible, bike/pedestrian/age friendly non-vehicular transportation throughout the city
2. A policy that requires the use of a portion of locally controlled funds for bike/pedestrian paths and and multi-modal transportation facilities, that connect with and/or are located within transit-oriented development
3. Ordinances that require sidewalks as part of every new development
4. Zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision regulations and approval processes that encourage compact community design that makes it possible to work, shop and go to school within walking distance of people’s homes and public transportation (i.e. transit-oriented, mixed-use development)
5. Aggressively pursue establishment of “Hubway” and “Zipcar” locations in villages throughout the city
6. Increase Newton’s involvement in regional transportation and residential planning that will reduce reliance on cars and the amount of time commuters in single/low occupancy vehicles sit in traffic on our major highways and the MassPike
All of these policies require both long term and short term targets. Every long journey starts with a single step, so I suggest we get started immediately on all fronts.
Complete Streets in Newton should mean making every street safer, fully accessible and more bike/pedestrian friendly to people of all ages and abilities. In other words, you shouldn’t have to cross five lanes of traffic (as in West Newton square) and take your life in your hands every time you want to cross from one side of the street to the other to shop, go to work, patronize local businesses or restaurants and walk or bike to school. Creating bike lanes, wide sidewalks, “bump outs” to reduce crossing distances and provide a safe harbor for pedestrians and bicyclists are all key aspects of what Complete Streets should look like in Newton. It will take time, but requiring that every street and sidewalk construction project from now on must comply with “Complete Streets” is a good start.
While I was chair of the Land Use Committee, I made sure that the transportation and parking impacts of every major commercial and residential project were thoroughly reviewed and considered as part of the special permit granting process. Mitigation funds for transportation impact have been and are frequently required for everything from expanding businesses and restaurants in village centers and office parks to major mixed use and commercial projects like Chestnut Hill Square and Riverside Station. I recently persuaded my colleagues to send a project that would have significantly increased parking as well as traffic congestion at Wells Avenue Office Park back to the Land Use Committee and negotiated a condition requiring a payment into a traffic mitigation fund with the developer in order to address this issue. On this basis, the Board of Aldermen approved the mitigation fund for this project and for a subsequent project at the office park.
As I noted above, every development project that has an impact on traffic and parking should be required to provide mitigation funds and/or roadway/sidewalk/infrastructure improvements as a condition of granting a permit. Requiring a contribution to a general “transportation fund” that can be used citywide, however, may present some legal obstacles as part of the permitting process. Constitutional principles govern the fee-setting process. In Emerson College vs. City of Boston (1984) the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts established a three-prong test to distinguish fees from taxes. The Court stated that fees are:
1. Based on services being performed or delivered;
2. Legitimate when the services received for the fee are provided only to the beneficiaries of the services, rather than the general public; and
3. Are paid by choice.
Only a legislative body has the authority to assess taxes, which have the following three characteristics:
1. Enforced contribution to provide for the general support of government;
2. Levied for a broad range of services, or the General Fund; and
3. Not exclusive to meet expenses incurred in providing a service.
Nevertheless, requiring sustainable development that promotes balanced economic growth through zoning reform and a progressive “smart growth” land use policy will provide added property tax revenue that can be used for citywide transportation mitigation efforts. Presently, Newton has a well-earned reputation for not being particularly receptive to such development, including the kind of smart growth (e.g. transit-oriented mixed-use development and added density in village centers) that would also help to reduce reliance on cars and promote pedestrian/bike/age friendly development especially in our village centers. Now that Phase 1 of Zoning Reform is complete, the City Council and the Administration must be laser-focused on substantive Phase 2 Zoning Reform, which will involve studying existing residential and commercial development and developing zoning that promotes development which fits with the existing scale, style and structures in our neighborhoods and village centers while supporting smart growth to ensure balanced economic growth and diverse housing opportunities for people at all income levels.
*I apologize in advance for the lengthiness of my responses. As Mark Twain once said, if I had had more time, I could have written something shorter.
I should have cited my source above for the summary of the impact of the Emerson College decision, which is the Massachusetts Administration and Finance agency website.
Posting here on behalf of Alderman Marcia Johnson (candidate for Ward 2):
In the short period of time, here are my responses:
Question 1: My focus on village center development with the Mixed Use 4 development district focuses on putting intergenerational housing in village centers. This enables people at all ages to have housing near transportation and services so they do not need their cars. With Austin Street, there is a huge focus on walkability, bicycles, and zip cars. I have also not supported taking houses and park land for parking. As a former teacher and corporate educator, I do understand that they need to carry materials, but there are ways through sharing spaces at the site and in the neighborhood that will work. For the sake of the world, we need to get out of our cars…all of us…and think green.
Question 2 – As I understand it Commissioner, Department of Public Works, Jim McGonagle is taking a Complete Streets approach. Frankly I was surprised and disappointed with the resurfacing of Lowell Avenue provided no area specifically designated for cyclists. I had understood from the past, that this had not been done due to the concrete surface. Well this summer, this was changed, so why did they not incorporate lanes for cyclists? I hope it is not too late as Lowell Ave. is better than Walnut Street.
Question 3 – Transportation..Streets…Parking need a strategic and tactical plan just as we have done with Water, Sewers, and Storm Drains along with Retiree Pension and Healthcare benefits. I do not know the answer regarding the money to be allocated and or a transportation fund. However if we involve the Transportation Advisory Group/Committee in the development of the plan for which the Mayor is seeking a consultant, we can develop the plans needed. This would allow us to responsibly identify the amount of money to be set aside to “fully implement complete streets” and ensure that pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists can safely share our roads.
Kind regards,
Marcia Johnson
Alderman-at-Large, Ward 2
Thanks Bike Newton for raising awareness regarding complete streets.
1. I work downtown and for over 6 years one of my staff biked to work nearly every day, first from Alston and then after he married and had children, from Needham. We talked about his biking experiences a lot. After hearing about some of the things that happened to him during his rides I worried about him every day. I’ve watched the number of med student bikes parked in front of the Sackler Building grow form nearly nothing when I first started working at Tufts to no less than 20 bikes every day and often many more. There are so many reasons to bike to work – the exercise, saving of resources, and the reduction of pollution are three of the most important reasons. Many of our streets are narrow and our major roadways developed over the last 50 years were not built with bikes in mind. That doesn’t mean we should leave them bike-unfriendly. If Europe can do it we should be able to as well. Every roadway we rebuild should have bikes and pedestrian safe crossing in mind.
2. This summer the northern end of Lowell Ave was being reconstructed. While Bill Paille had laid out the street with complete street elements in mind – it didn’t seem to be developing that way as it was emerging. I met with Bill, Andrea Downs, and Alicia Bowman to review the street. We all came to the conclusion that something had gone awry in the planning. I contacted the Commissioner and luckily they were able to make changes in how the street was ultimately constructed. (however – I wonder why we didn’t leave slivers in the pedestrian bump-outs for bikers to just bike through rather than go around the bump-outs!) Complete streets – meaning making our streets work for cars, pedestrians and bikers are important for the quality of life for the citizens of Newton. As mentioned above – every roadway we rebuild should have bikes and safe pedestrian crossing in mind. So many Newton citizens want to and are riding bikes to work. As a matter of public safety we have to plan for this.
3. It makes sense that traffic mitigation funds take bike routes and pedestrian safety into account – as mentioned above all streets should be made bike friendly and safe for pedestrians – whenever such mitigation is required. However, as I understand the rules about mitigation relative to projects there should be a nexus between the mitigation requested and the project. That would mean paying into a general mitigation fund might have some legal obstacles to overcome.
Posting here on behalf of Alderman Alison Leary (candidate for Ward 1):
Alderman Leary described herself as a “complete proponent of complete streets”, emphasizing that to her, the term signifies that people have transportation choices beyond single occupancy car travel; and that these choices are comfortable and safe. Although significant change in Newton won’t occur overnight, she supports steady progress toward achieving complete streets in Newton. Toward that end, she favors policies that prioritize walking, biking and public transit over single occupancy car travel, and parking demand management policies that ensure that there is sufficient convenient parking that is managed intelligently and efficiently. To ensure safety for bikers, she emphasized the importance of separating bikes from other users, preferably by physical protection or grade separation, sometimes called “protected bike lanes”.
As Ald. Leary put it she favors “people over parking”, meaning that parking should be considered one resource among several that ultimately are made available to most effectively and conveniently serve mobility needs of people. She cited research that shows that commercial areas that are more accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists see greater foot traffic and economic vibrancy. Moreover, policies to encourage transit, walking and biking can help alleviate congestion. She shared the experience of driving into the Boston Globe building on Morrissey Blvd. using the Mass Pike 5 years ago, when it routinely took 20-25 minutes; now the same trip could take 45-55 minutes as the Pike has increasingly become a “parking lot”. If Newton does not make changes to increase transportation options including transit, walking and biking, it will face increasing traffic congestion problems.
Ald. Leary singled out equity issues in Transportation. In August, 2015, she walked with local pedestrian and mobility equity advocates Alicia Bowman and Gerard Plante around Newton Corner to evaluate accessibility issues for all users, finding several areas that fall short of providing equal access. A priority in her ward and throughout Newton is to address these gaps, which currently completely block mobility challenged people from moving around safely and conveniently throughout Newton. In addition, Ald. Leary noted that children lack safe routes to walk or bike to school, noting that in Ward 1, St. James Street over the pike, which has potential to be a route to Underwood School by children living north of the Pike, is so dangerous currently that they can only be bused. While on the topic of schools, Ald. Leary felt that parking management could be improved dramatically at schools using underutilized tools such as parking sharing.
Funding for equitable and sustainable transportation options was an issue of concern for Ald. Leary. She is a proponent of pricing carbon, and potentially a gasoline fee, which can fund local transportation projects and complete streets projects. Additionally, she favors the use of transportation mitigation funds from development projects to support infrastructure to promote more walking and biking.
Alison Leary
Ward Alderman
Ward 1
617-821-5619
Posting here on behalf of Alderman Deb Crossley (candidate for Ward 5):
I think from our long talk the other day, you have a good feel for the importance I give to resolving transportation issues along with master planning a more sustainable future our community. I will do my best to respond below – but know that I believe that an integrated design process is essential to achieving an outcome that balances environmental, social and economic objectives.
Put in simpler terms, a thriving economy requires that people be able to move freely and easily to work, play and to acquire the goods and services they need. But wise environmental stewardship means both sharing resources (public transportation, concentrating some development at transit nodes and where infrastructure is in place) – and making walking and biking safe and desirable alternatives – by design. And community needs must be met by achieving the right mix of housing, goods, services and amenities. Balancing these objectives is key, so you really have to talk about the whole community plan when thinking through how to move about within it.
• 1.9 million vehicle miles are driven each day in Newton, producing congestion, pollution, and nearly a third of Newton’s greenhouse gas emissions. What role do you see that non-vehicular transportation (e.g. walking, biking, etc.) should play in reducing these problems and what specific policies and priorities would you support to address this issue and what specific targets would you set by when?
Master planning is key to integrating safe walking and biking pathways throughout our community. Although our comprehensive plan tells us to strive toward multi modal transit options, we do not have clear rules that support that goal. We need to set clear policies and objectives for our villages, commercial centers and streets – that will result in continuous pathways. This will realistically be a long and ongoing process.
I would look forward personally to safer bikeways in Newton!
• How would you define “complete streets” as a transportation policy for Newton? Would you advocate for policy requiring all projects in Newton which impact transportation be funded, planned, designed, and built and maintained in compliance with the complete streets policies as defined, e.g., here, prior to awarding contracts for any part of the project?
The public way includes sidewalk, berm, trees, benches, lighting, curbs, drainage, roadway, as well as the water and public utilities underground.
If we can define clearly – and agree on a set of policies going forward, then we can codify a set of rules in support of those policies that would require developers to comply, and/or we can offer incentives for certain things. we are beginning to do this ad hoc in the granting of special permits. For example, recent Needham Street developments granted special permits have widened sidewalks, walking trails , and have agreed to develop connections to the future “Greenway”
MUCH more to discuss here…
• Development projects often require transportation mitigation funds. Would you support efforts to equitably apportion transportation-related investments that result from new development projects, such that:
a) At least 50% of transportation mitigation funding is allocated to improving transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility at and to the project site, or
b) That these funds are deposited in a “sustainable transportation fund” such that the city can improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility throughout the city?
In my experience over the past six years on the land use committee, each project proposed demands its own review: existing conditions, transportation impacts from the development, and other impacts all require consideration. But if we have a master plan for an area and clear objectives, the easier it will be to make consistent judgments.
When we know where we want to go, it is much easier to determine the path of travel!
Deborah J. Crossley
A L D E R M A N
[email protected]