What transportation-related changes do you think Newton should make to reduce carbon emissions?
The city is developing a Climate Action Plan, which will outline the steps the city can and should take to reduce carbon emissions. (The city is also developing a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan, which will outline the risks the city faces from climate change and the steps required to mitigate the risk.) The plan will include recommended changes to our transportation network.
Good news and bad news: municipalities have the power to make changes that can have a meaningful impact on climate change, especially on the transportation front. What transportation changes do you think Newton should make? Where are the opportunities? How aggressive should we be? How much sacrifice should we expect Newtonians to make?
I’ll have a post with my top-ten list, shortly.
A significant cause of global change is the high use of air
conditioners. Perhaps people could cut down their use of home cooling systems.
As for transportation, there could be less school busing and more
walking to local schools.
Re the underlying premise for the City of Newton’s “Climate Action Plan” and proposed “transportation-related changes”:
1. ‘Global warming’ should not be conflated with other actual, addressable, and fixable environmental problems.
2. ‘Global warming’ if actual would entail essentially shutting down modern western industrial civilization (as well as China’s, India’s , and modernization of Africa’s which far negates any progress made in the West) in order to have appreciable impact, and expenditure of such vast resources and wealth as utterly to bankrupt our economy and society.
3. Even if ‘global warming’ were actual, cost-benefit analysis would include comparison of cost physically to accommodate to ‘global warming’ impacts such as rising sea level vs. cost to endeavor to reduce ‘global warming’, the former being far far less in cost.
Colleen, if asking Newtonians to cut down their use of home cooling systems is real, why not ask them to cut down their use of home heating systems as well. And since you mention local schools, if the City were actually serious in doing something the City controls without needing any investment whatsoever, it could simply turn off all schools’ cooling systems as well as cut down the use of school heating systems. (We all know, however, that’s neva gonna happen. )
Paul Hawken has a book about the top 100 solutions to drawdown climate change: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions
#1 refrigerant management, #2 ONshore wind turbines, #3 reduced food waste. I’ll post a followup where the city can have an impact.
I won’t dignify responding to any of the climate change deniers and suggest others do as well.
Personally i would love to see a bus only lane to downtown. It would justify its high price. Allow private bus operators on this lane too. It just needs a frequent schedule
Its something that could be setup relatively quickly and enforcement could bring in much revenue.
Also a dedicated bus service to cambridge as its a large jobs center.
Nelson Wong states above: “I won’t dignify responding to any of the climate change deniers and suggest others do as well.”
First of all, my supposition for the sake of discussion is the actual existence of climate change, and from that make three points:
1. Questioning the addressing of climate change (i.e. global warming) IS different than addressing other environmental problems which ARE fixable under current realistic constraints (such as clean air, water etc.)
2. There remains the question of any impacting actions taken in the USA (and the West), when China, India, developing Africa, etc. are pursuing more than countervailing pursuits in disregard, such as multiple new coal plants, tremendous increase of fossil fuel using motor vehicles, modernization, electrification, and water consumption, etc.
3. The denial of cost-benefit analysis in addressing global warming.
I’d suggest that Nelson Wong is unable specifically to address these underlying critical questions, and his denial even of their existence with gratuitously insulting comments such as “won’t dignify…” proves my point and, with all due respect, is intellectually dishonest, along with his admonition that others do the same.
@Jim Epstein, climate change is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. Your words imply doubt of the existence of climate change – which is acceptable – but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and frankly, this isn’t the place for it. Given this, we can conclude that you are being disingenuous by muddying the waters and derailing the topic of what the city can or should do regarding climate change and transportation.
Here’s one suggestion:
https://mobilitylab.org/2019/02/07/why-biking-must-be-explicitly-added-to-the-green-new-deal/
Looking through the top solutions on https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank, the applicable solutions to the city regarding transportation are:
#26 Electric Vehicles
I doubt the city has enough city-owned vehicles to switch over to electric to justify the cost. Planning for/requiring electric charging stations makes more sense, but we’d have to see more data – this also seems doubtful regarding cost/benefit.
#37 Mass Transit
This one is where the city can have the most impact. I wonder how much leverage the city has to influence the MBTA.
#69 Electric Bikes
Figuring out how to deal with bike ride-sharing like Lime so that they don’t litter the sidewalks and cause mobility issues, especially for handicapped, elderly, and those with restricted mobility.
Nelson, again, my comments don’t relay that there is no climate change, nor are they extraordinary. In fact, my questions premise the existence of climate change, and from that premise, address the economics and feasibility of dealing with that. The City of Newton has a limited budget, and many taxpayers are concerned that proposed transportation changes cost serious money, and NO WHERE IS THERE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGES (not even in the 72 page “City of Newton Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Action Plan”).
Since you raise “disingenuous”, it is the height of folly to commit serious money without a cost-benefit analysis; and therefore, any existence of disingenuous is on the part of those who ignore cost-benefit, especially in light of the first two of my questions.
…and since Andrea Downs (above) suggests that biking must be explicitly added to what is Senator Markey’s and Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal (with which I’m assuming Newton’s Transportation Plan would comply), the Green New Deal already does call for:
1. The elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
2. The elimination of all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would eliminate around 20 percent of American energy production so Americans assumedly can rely on intermittent wind for replacement energy needs.
3. The replacement of every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is not included.
4. “The retrofit of every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced.
5. The building of “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” (No mention of ocean routes.)
None of the above is an exaggeration, so explicitly adding biking should not be problematic .
The Green New Deal also proposes the introduction of Soylent Green into every American’s diet.
Nelson – A large change to electric vehicles will overwhelm our state’s electric grid and until the grid is all green energy, EV’s are still creating CO2. This is why the Governor’s Commission on the Future of Transportation in MA made their #1 recommendation 1. Prioritize investment in public transit as the foundation for a robust, reliable, clean, and efficient transportation system.
https://www.mass.gov/orgs/commission-on-the-future-of-transportation
We need more information. Vehicle miles traveled. Commuters, versus local traffic. Are the portions of the Pike, 128, and Route 9 that travel through Newton part of that data? If everyone in Newton biked and walked more, or took public transportation, that would certainly reduce carbon emissions, but the reduction in vehicle traffic would cause a shift by commuters who would then fill the void by taking advantage of the reduced congestion. What percentage of vehicles driving through Newton are electric? This helps inform whether charging stations will be used, but it build it and they will come? I guess what I’m saying is that there are some things we can do in here to reduce transportation carbon emissions, but the issue is large enough that it needs State and Federal level policy change to really move the needle. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our part, but transportation is such a huge animal that it needs a top-down approach.
Nelson Wong,
Is your comment that the Green New Deal introduces Soylent Green into everyone’s diet meant to be humorous or dismissive of my reporting on the Green New Deal? If so, I more than assure you that what I state is entirely accurate (look it up yourself). And, it would seem entirely logical for Newton’s proposed Global Warming transportation plan to comport with that proposed by its United States Senator.
If in fact you are amused or bemused or non-believing, I suggest that you contact Senator Markey’s office — he, as your United States Senator, is dead serious! (BTW, since you raise soylent green, the Green New Deal does, in fact, call for a the Government promising a salubrious diet to every American. I’m not kidding.)
@Lucia – I agree with you that public transit should take precedence over electric vehicles. At the same time, I don’t think it’s that difficult to ensure that EVs charging at stations are using 100% renewable energy (if it’s at all like Newton Power Choice, switching over is just an admin change on the backend of the electric supplier).
Also, increased strain on the electrical grid from high uptake from EVs is a good problem to have as it will incentivize upgrades to our infrastructure which as we all know is not a priority until it is broken.
Nelson & Lucia,
Since Senator Markey’s legislative plan calls for the replacement of EVERY “COMBUSTIBLE-ENGINE VEHICLE” WITHIN 10 YEARS, on what basis can you even propose that Newton’s Transportation Plan entail increase use of or investment in (non-totally electric) buses/public transit?
Or are you saying or implying that the City of Newton should not take seriously Senator Markey’s Green New Deal?
One important aspect is we should be moving towards net-0 buildings, through policies like requiring rooftop solar and electric heat systems. We can be a national leader in these issues and should be.
We should be greatly improving walkability and bikeability in village centers to cut down short trips, and supporting policies like Newton Power Choice.
re: a dedicated bus to Cambridge in a much earlier comment…
It baffles my mind that there’s no easy way to get from Newton to Cambridge using public transit. I know people who take the CR into South Station and then go outbound on the Red Line because it’s really one of the only ways to do it. I’ve taken the express bus from West Newton to Newton Corner and then walked to Watertown Square to catch the 71. There really are no good options.
Jim, I think you make some valid points. But ranting about Democrats isn’t the best way to support your arguments, at least in Newton. Especially since the “Green New Deal” has little chance of actually becoming law.
Ted, would you say that the Democrat Senators and Representatives (including Dem presidential candidates) who have proclaimed their support of the Green New Deal also believe that it “has little chance of actually becoming law”? (BTW, thanks for your stating support of the points I have made.)
Jim, give the folks here credit for (at least seemingly) taking the “green new deal” with exactly the non existent level of seriousness it merits. You are right to note that for fools like Markey it is very much a real thing, but give him a few years and he’ll be replaced in Washington by a fresh faced woman of color.
Craig, you are correct about Markey, but unfortunately untold thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars are already being spent here in Newton on ‘Climate Action Plans’ by government officials who do take seriously Markey’s “green new deal”.
Another creative way to get to Cambridge is to take the CR Fitchburg Line from Roberts/Brandeis or Waltham to Porter and take the Red Live from there to Harvard to Central.
@ Jim
The scary thing is that they start big to get headlines. Then the “Profiles in courage” in DC will water it down slightly, but push the timeline out. If 10 years becomes 50 years others will agree to it, knowing full well that they wont be around when the deadline comes due. But they’ll be able to hi-five and back slap the “Bold Decisions” they made today for the good of humanity.
Lisa, that’s another way but first you need to be able to get to Waltham!
Climate change is here and it’s happening – sooner rather than later. I’m glad there is acknowledgement by local leadership that we as a community have a part to play, as well at the state, national, and global level.
As a nation, we stood together, worked together, and sacrificed so that we could help the war effort of World War II. There is no clear enemy here in climate change, but the consequences are dire, maybe even more so, if we don’t take the difficult steps of addressing it now.
@ Craig: I’ve been thinking about your statement regarding Sen. Markey… “[g]ive him a few years and he’ll be replaced in Washington by a fresh faced woman of color.” I guess I think he’ll be replaced by a Joe Kennedy, a Seth Moulton or a Maura Healey.
Nelson, if what you say is correct — dire consequences, World War II type sacrifice and effort required, etc. and Newton has a part to play — why are our city leaders promoting even more local growth and development (e.g., Northland Project) with the attendant INCREASE in CO2 bi-product?????
On the one hand, Newton Planners promote net CO2 producing development, density, with attendant increase transportation activity, while at the same time promote what would be more than very expensive (at least initially) CO2 curtailing plans.
Just cut out the massive Northland Project — that would be one (very INEXPENSIVE) step in the right direction if Newton were sincere that we face dire consequences of climate change and our local contribution is critical. Absent actions like that, implementing a Climate Action Plan is just a “feel good” (albeit potentially expensive) hypocritical exercise.
I highly encourage folks to look at their electricity bills and see if signing up for 100% renewable energy makes financial sense in Newton Power Choice: https://masspowerchoice.com/newton.
For my household, it only costs an extra $4 at most during the highest electricity use in the summer months.
@Mary Mary: After taking the express bus from West Newton to Newton Corner, you could have caught the #57 bus to Watertown Yard (which is located at the intersection of Galen Street and Nonantum Road) and then walked over the bridge to the Watertown Square Terminal to catch the #71 bus to Harvard Square. It *is* possible—a bit more work, both mentally (coordinating three bus schedules) and physically (making three bus transfers)— but possible.
@Laura: Over the past year or so, I’ve made it a point to ask people who work in Newton how they commute to work and, if they drive, why they don’t take public transportation? This includes people who work at the library, various doctors and physical therapy offices, the Newton Y, coffee shops, grocery stores, pharmacies and several other places. I identify myself as a member of the Highlands Area Council.
The folks I’ve talked with range in age from early 20s to mid 50s. They commute into Newton from cities and towns in all directions. This isn’t scientific, but I think it’s instructive. Almost all of them drive to work and the reason they don’t take public transportation is the time it would take for them to do so. People are under an ungodly amount of stress these days trying to balance work, school and home responsibilities. They just can’t afford the time and effort it takes for a circuitous bus or trolley trip from where they live to where they work in Newton or any other place for that matter.
Here’s the rub. Villages like Newton Highlands developed in stages each time the old commuter rail system (Now the D Line) was upgraded during the 19th century. Public transportation spawned residential and commercial development, not the other way around. Every transportation planning project I worked on stressed that it’s far better to have the transportation in place before people move into new houses rather than trying to play catch up. This is why I have a certain amount of disquiet about the large scale developments being planned for Newton and how the public transportation system will grow to serve it. I’m going to have more to say about this down the line.
Jim – Electric bus exist and should be used here. Also, dense development is one of the best things we can do to reduce CO2 emissions.
“Summary:
Atmospheric scientists report that suburban sprawl increases carbon dioxide emissions more than similar population growth in a developed urban core.”
University of Utah. “Carbon dioxide sensor network shows effects of metro growth.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 March 2018. .
I think it is fairly easy to get to Cambridge from Newton if you catch Needham-Watertown Route 59 (and you aren’t in the portion of the route that the T is proposing to cut in Upper Falls and Newton Highlands.) and use Route 71 to Cambridge.
By the way, Bob Burke’s description of the history of transportation and development in Newton is absolutely accurate.
If you live anywhere near the 59 bus route. I’m nearly two miles from the closest 59 bus.
Lucia — I agree that sprawl development is worse than dense development in terms of CO2. However, I’m talking about NEW development (e.g., Northland Project). The new dense development is still NEW development, added to all the other existing development in Newton, thereby creating all the NEW CO2. Certainly NEW DENSE development on otherwise UNDEVELOPED property is substantial NEW CO2.
The poor commute options to cambridge (the main job growth of metro boston) is pretty inexcusable
All this talk about reducing car pollution and no politican has addressed this with the MBTA tells you how poorly managed they are.
Seriously, its probably easier to drive to cambridge and pay for parking.
@nelson
Just changed to 100% thanks for the reminder, took only 5 minutes.
Here is a Google Sheets (“Newton Power Choice Savings Calculator”) that you can use to calculate and compare the different plans.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UoQgO47z-4N4t95y9ci33QgurNc2EPtAR6aDXhq5rq8
(If the long URL above doesn’t work, try this shortened one below)
https://bit.ly/2Sq5VT1
It is set to VIEW only (can’t everyone make changes to it simultaneously), but if you download it or make a copy in your Google Drive, you can make changes.
You will need a login for your electricity provider. For example, for Eversource go to this page to use their “Green Button” to download your electricity usage:
https://www.eversource.com/content/ema-c/residential/save-money-energy/energy-efficiency-tips/green-button
Once you download your usage as a CSV file, you can easily copy and paste values into the Newton Power Choice Savings Calculator.
It is my hope that people will see how inexpensive the 100% Green offering is. Hope that helps!
Although it is true that if every single vehicle that had an internal combustion engine converted to electricity that they could overwhelm the electrical grid’s capacity to reliably transfer energy from the wholesale market to individual vehicles, it’s not clear that that isn’t more of a theoretical than a practical issue.
First, the rate at which ICE vehicles are being converted to EVs is relatively slow. Most projections have conversion rates between 1% to, at most, 3% per year. That upper bound would imply that it would take nearly a quarter century for complete conversion to happen. Any requirements to upgrade the electrical grid could easily be accomplished within that time frame.
Second, to the degree that homes with EVs charge them with solar PV, that reduces the burden on the grid since those situations would largely not involve the grid.
Third, almost all scenarios with high EV penetration, envision some form of smart charging, that is, staged charging of EVs through the use of smart metering technology. It’s worth noting that Eversource has fairly vigorously opposed smart residential metering. (It performed a single poorly designed experiment to demonstrate that customers would not respond to the price signals provided by smart meters. As a participant in the experiment, it was quite clear its flaws were so large as to overwhelm any potential effects.)
Fourth, although enhancing public transportation is a worthy goal, the effects may be less than overwhelming. The MBTA’s transit system is largely electrified already with the exception of buses. The greenhouse gas benefits would arise from converting over the existing buses to electric and any reduced ICE vehicle miles by increased ridership. The latest statistics suggest that about 13% of daily commute trips use public transit, with over half on the portion already electrified. The portion of total daily trips on public transit is about 8%.
Fifth, if there is likely any problem with the electrical system, initially it will be very localized. Grid issues can arise from having a majority of homes on any particular circuit that own EVs choosing to simultaneously charge their vehicles. EV’s penetration rate into the market will be greatest among households whose incomes are sufficient to support the capital and operating costs. Such households tend to cluster in neighborhoods, so this scenario is possible. However, smart charging, which stages the EV charging regimen, can largely reduce the circuit upgrade requirements (although see above regarding the local utility’s position on smart meters.) Modifying an individual distribution circuit is not generally a task which takes very long nor is terribly disruptive to the neighborhood where it occurs. The costs of such an upgrade are usually borne by the owners of the EVs in most jurisdictions, although I don’t know the treatment by our local utility.
Just to focus on transportation-related GHG emissions:
1) Build on current MassDOT Railvision planning, invest in Riverside and commuter rail stops, offer frequent service in small, self-propelled cars, with routes to proposed West Stations, downtown and North Station via Kendall. Pricing guess: $1-2 billion, i.e. less than Green Line extension. Would need federal $.
2) I second the bus-only Turnpike lane.
3) Congestion pricing for single occupancy vehicles or Uber/Lyft/taxis at peak hours
Bill Gates has thought about these issues pretty seriously. Some of you may have seen his blog post about this issue from last year.
Try to beat him on this energy quiz:
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Climate-change-quiz
Here are his ideas (and he’s putting up his own money to see them happen):
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/My-plan-for-fighting-climate-change
He is an advocate for continued nuclear power research (see the energy section of his year end letter):
https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018
As an aside, I know a few engineers who have worked directly with Bill Gates, and consider him one of the smartest and most insightful people they’ve ever met.
On the other hand, moving to electric vehicles is a good idea in the public transit and personal transit world for reasons beyond energy efficiency. Maintenance costs over time are lower (Renault estimates 25% lower). Manufacturing costs are likely to be driven down relentlessly. Pollution is mostly eliminated at the individual vehicle, and isolated at the power plant and factory where we can be aggressive about emissions and mitigation.
For the mix of these reasons, China is rapidly electrifying its bus fleet:
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/05/how-china-charged-into-the-electric-bus-revolution/559571/
This technology will likely transfer to Europe and the US, giving Chinese manufacturers a huge opportunity here. There are teething problems in US cities, but it’s hard to imagine they won’t be worked out. Electric buses will put pressure on the grid:
https://www.axios.com/electric-buses-china-united-states-byd-los-angeles-e872ae5a-bb3a-455b-abc4-b98ce6f9d8db.html
California will move to 100% electrified buses by 2040, again, for a mix of reasons:
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421438-california-commits-to-100-percent-electric-bus-fleet-by-2040
Also factor into the equation that private battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will likely be cheaper than internal combustion vehicles within the next decade:
http://www.automotivebusiness.com.br/abinteligencia/pdf/EV-Price-Parity-Report.pdf
Will drivers expect curbside recharging capability? Will communities that don’t have it be left behind? Charging time is shopping time.
We really win when save the world AND solve people’s problems AND save them money AND benefit our local economy, all at the same time.