What is Balanced Transportation?

It has been said that Peter Furth was ousted from his seat on Brookline's Transportation Board because he was "too focused on bicycles". Not even getting into the truth about Professor Furth's bona fide credentials as a world class transportation engineer, let's just stop for a minute and think about what saying that someone is "too focused on bicycles" to be on the Transportation Board means.

Bicycles are one form of transportation. A very efficient, inexpensive, accessible and non-polluting one at that. In fact, it's fair to say that we have become so biased in our view that we think myopically, assuming that "transportation" is code speak for moving cars. Can we imagine someone saying "he's too focused on cars"? By articulating how to improve conditions for bicycling, we are making an effort to nudge our thinking a bit. Our community could improve if we viewed our public streets as a community asset and amenity meant to be used in a way that promotes access, safety and livability. This means looking holistically at the needs of the those in a car, those on foot, those riding a bike, and those riding the bus and train. How do all those moving parts interact with one another?, with their environment? and how can we best provide access between to all possible origins and destinations for the benefit of the greatest number of people in the most efficient manner? We need to think about the mobility needs of all members of our community. To speak about the needs of bicyclist's is to try to broaden our thinking to include accommodating other forms of transportation besides the automobile. And so, it is in fact an act of bringing balance to the board to have a member who has such a broad perspective already and with the experience and expertise to speak for the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders and drivers.

When it comes to trying to achieve "balance" between an auto and a bicycle or pedestrian, it's a bit like talking about the "balance" between an innocent deer in the woods and a hunter with a rifle. The safety equation is heavily skewed in favor of the one with the weapon. In this case, the automobile. I read a recent article about an AARP survey of aging drivers. In a setting where complete dependence on the automobile is subsidized and fostered, it is understandable that elders fear the isolation and reduced opportunities for an active life that giving up driving entails. When asked about whether or not they considered walking an appropriate alternative to driving, the most frequent reason given for not thinking it was, was a lack of safety! Elders can no longer drive safely, yet they fear for their life as a pedestrian. This is a direct result of designing our streets and intersections to facilitate the maximum movement of cars instead of focusing on making it safe (let alone pleasant) to cross the street on foot.

At a time when obesity related health issues and the direct health implications of climate change threaten our very existence, you would think we would want to do everything we can to make it safe and enjoyable to walk and bike, whenever these modes might be a via alternative. What those who fear these accommodations don't realize is that it is not an all or nothing proposition, but rather a case of providing a viable choice for those who might wish to choose it if it were available. While many argue that accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians is catering to the "fringe few" this is a disingenuous argument. How can we gauge the "market demand" for something that doesn't even exist in the market place? Bicycle safety increases dramatically the more bicyclists there are.

It can also be said that Peter Furth does have a balanced viewpoint, or more importantly a realistic viewpoint, understanding and having expertise in all modes of transportation engineering. He has studied how people get around, around the world, and it is this breadth of understanding that allows him to see the potential for doing things better in Brookline. The changes he has advocated for in Brookline, and the one that apparently cost him his seat on the Board, was extremely modest, and he helped work towards a compromise when objections were raised. And yet those who favor the status quo above all else have made their wishes known and gotten him booted off the board. By the way, I think Bill Schwartz will be a fine addition to the Board, but a seat could have been found for him when a vacancy opened up, it did not have to be at the expense of someone of Peter's talents who was willing to serve.

It is also disappointing to contemplate the broader implications of the move to ouster Professor Furth. Here we have someone with a great deal of professional skill and expertise who volunteers their time and energies, but in making an attempt to apply themselves, arouses a few vocal opponents. This, despite the fact that the Transportation Board, Mr. Furth included, worked very hard to listen to and accommodate all concerns. The result, he is removed. This, I am afraid, does not encourage those who have valuable insights to contribute to step up and volunteer.

Sustainable Brookline Conference

Last Sunday a gathering was held at Wheelock College, called Sustainable Brookline. Coordinated by many individuals, most notably the ad hoc Steering Committee for a Sustainable Brookline, its stated mission was to "develop a coordinated strategy for making Brookline a truly sustainable community". Over 60 members of our community gave up their Sunday afternoon to meet, discuss and plan future coordinated actions. Don Weitzman of the Climate Change Action Committee ran the meeting with supreme efficiency, ensuring that everyone present was able to participate and the ideas continued to flow.

Many groups and individuals were represented. Each presented up to three "actions" that would bring Brookline closer to sustainability. Many, many good ideas came forward, some were clearly predictable, doable and valuable such as expanding recycling programs to businesses, others were more innovative and perhaps challenging to implement, such as the Conservation Commission's Green Streets program that seeks to manage storm water flows with vegetation. Building, energy and vehicle efficiencies were all pinpointed by numerous groups. Many spoke of the need to promote alternative transportation including bikes, transit and walking while reducing auto-dependence. Hugh Mattison spoke of the need to interest young people in street tree stewardship through a tree buddy program. The GreenSpace Alliance stressed the education of youth too in it's presentation, clearly thought was given to the need look ahead.

Our actions are intermeshed and carry rippling repercussions. Some of these connections were identified at the conference. Transportation Board policies impact the Bicycle Advisory Committee's planned bike routes. Implementing green building standards will redirect a building contractor's business. As my previous post outlines, our zoning ordinances' requirement for excessive parking has far reaching impacts on the livability of our community. Future discussions will hopefully bring into focus the benefits of promoting localized economies, food production and social structures.

And yet, the purpose of the gathering was no doubt in response to the growing awareness of the need for action to prepare for the changes that will undoubtedly come our way. Sitting in a room full of "environmentalists", (an antiquated term I feel because it now has a history of adversarial politics and "holier than thou" attitudes that have not been particularly constructive), took me back to the original Earth Day, I vividly recall participating in it. I was in grade school, I pinned a "Give Earth a Chance" button on my shirt and we cleaned up our play yard! It seems almost ridiculous that a species living on the planet had to have an Earth Day at all, but there it is, I guess we did. The river just down the street from my school churned and foamed a putrid green with the effluent from the paper mill just upstream. It eventually got cleaned up. I am sure everyone around me had similar memories. I recall too, learning in college courses about the true impacts of our industries and way of life. We studied natural resource economics, world food systems, community environmental field studies and resource dispute resolution, all trying to bring reason and humanity back to the center of things.

In truth we are all in this together, going along for the ride. We are all both part of the problem and potentially part of the solution. It was inspiring to see so many dedicated individuals who were truly trying to put forward positive solutions. I salute each and every one of you.

Perhaps future generations will read over the minutes of our meeting and think, "thank goodness they finally started to get their act together and tried to do something." Or perhaps they will say, "it was too late and they just didn't know it, and the things they talked about didn't make any difference anyway". There were those voices at the conference who urged a more drastic reaction and response. (Like what?, they didn't say.) Fear and panic do not seem very useful. While others spoke of the need to process and adjust. So in the end, I believe it was the middle road that was taken. A call for action within the state of things as we know them, never losing sight of the need to continually push ourselves for further progress.

While I do not have faith in technological solutions alone, as some do, I believe in our ability to adapt, change, evolve, and innovate. Solutions will be combinations of things more intertwined and complex than we can imagine, an infinitely dispersed network of problem solvers will come up with a great many things. So I guess I am a glass half full person. I thank the ad hoc committee for organizing the conference and look forward to seeing the progress we make working together towards a sustainable Brookline.

[where:02446]

Which Brookline are we Talking about?

I've been doing a lot of head shaking and wondering out loud lately. Wondering how is it possible that seemingly well-intentioned people could just not get it. Take the case of our illustrious Commissioner of Public Works who seems to think the farmer's should be made accountable for the opportunity cost of the parking revenue the town would have got if we could only park cars instead of host a farmer's market! http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Centre+Street,+Brookline,+MA
+02446&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=42.310334,77.695313&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1. That market adds so much good for the citizens of this town on so many levels it would be worth it if we had to pay the farmer's to come sell us their produce! Then there is the Economic Development Advisory Committee who seem to be under the impression that three sites in Coolidge Corner should, will and must be developed to their absolute maximum income generating potential even if this means building at a scale exceeding current limits by four times. Why bother drafting plans, involving the community in a lengthy process of identifying goals and objectives and having ordinances if at every turn these guidelines and rules are overrun and ignored as they have been time and again? The list is growing longer, the St Aiden's project , the ZBA handing out variances for the asking, lax building code enforcement, and more isolated, bloated one-off development proposals on the drawing board that will bring in a few more bucks but don't have a lot to offer the community in the long run.

Meanwhile, we have yet to articulate a vision for a truly prosperous Brookline in the future. What will assure out continued success as a community is investing in those public amenities that young families look for, like farmer's markets, arts organizations, parks, developments that create usable and attractive public spaces, pedestrian amenities and retail establishments that are a mix of the useful and practical and fun and unusual. All supporting an environmentally responsible, non-auto dependent lifestyle. We have the basic structure already, it would not be difficult, but we could make some major mistakes and ruin our chances.

Brookline is a desirable place and we don't need to go begging to developers to get growth at all costs just to pay for needed services. Where is our self-respect? Developers will tell you that it is not so much regulations that they object to. What is worse, is long drawn out open-ended negotiations, where no one can say what it is they want just what they don't. Change happens and it would be a lot better if we were prepared for it. Instead, we get various committees, working at cross purposes, coming up with proposals which are not part of a long range vision for a vibrant, vital Brookline of the future. We should ask, what will this add to the quality of life of our citizens? They seem to be working on mandates that come from.... where?

How is it that our elected and appointed officials and municipal employees keep getting it wrong? How is that they seem to completely not understand the necessity to nurture and support those things that are critical to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for Brookline's citizens? I have thought about this long and hard and I think it comes down to this. They live in a different Brookline. Their Brookline is a lot more like a typical suburban community. Single-family homes with yards, a garage, a quite street. They drive their car to Coolidge Corner, they don't walk through crowded neighborhoods or try to sleep though yet another student kegger next door. They do not understand that for those of us who live in the denser parts of town, those public amenities like parks, the farmer's market and the senior center are our yards, porches, living rooms and vacations. The public realm is truly that, a shared space that makes occupying a small condominium bearable. If they understood these experiences perhaps they would have understood from the beginning that tearing down a historic Kennedy family place of worship, heritage trees and a reasonably spacious yard and replacing it with a massive towering stack of subsidized housing was too much to ask. We love the same things about Brookline that they do, only for us they take on a much greater significance in our daily experience. Being able to safely cross the street on foot in Coolidge Corner should matter more than moving a few more cars faster.

Can Brookline Adapt?

Recently, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a report that states that climate change, caused by human activity will bring profound disruptions to everything from rainfall, ocean levels, and food production to plant and animal diversity. Reminding us again that the consequences of our actions are coming home to roost. The ecological imperative for change is upon us as well as we struggle through another winter of painful payments to the heating oil companies. Our cold winters have made us dependent upon what is increasingly seeming like an antiquated technology.

How well-positioned is Brookline to respond to these challenges? What might Brookline as the eco-city of the future look like? One big problem is the age of our housing stock which exacerbates our reliance on heating oil. At my condominium, we have paid extra assessments last year and this to cover our staggering oil heating bills. Calling these fees temporary is merely a form of denial. We are also buying a new boiler and adopting new efficiency enhancing techniques of temperature control, which will yield some small savings. But I can't help but wonder at the folly of investing vast sums in a new oil heat boiler. But what alternatives do we have? How will we heat our homes in the future? Bio-fuels?

Like most buildings in Brookline our building is old and not that efficient. Some upgrades are available that will help somewhat, such as replacement windows. Which are easy to do but expensive. Other energy saving enhancements may require major reconstruction and investment. Unlike new construction, we cannot take advantage of all the new green building materials and techniques. On the plus side, adaptive re-use is ecologically efficient in its own way, avoiding the ecological consequences of manufacture, construction and demolition. Surely adaptive techniques, materials and technologies will be developed as their need becomes apparent.

Our greatest asset is our compact development pattern and the mass transit system that provides for our mobility without the necessity of using a personal automobile for each trip. We are extremely fortunate, unlike most of the rest of the country where widely dispersed development means complete reliance on automobile travel. As James Howard Kunstler writes, "American suburbia represents the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." All sorts of infrastructure efficiencies flow from compact living, and the task for the future is to enhance livability in these settings. With more attention paid to the public realm we could have amenities that would allow individuals to, in essence, expand their living area through use of shared public spaces for recreation, access to nature, transportation and civic functions. The sharing of these resources would achieve benefits to social well being and community life as well.

New housing will need to be accommodated in areas already well served by transit and we will also hopefully see improvements to transit service in those areas that are currently now only served by infrequent buses at best. New nodes of density could perhaps be accommodated in tandem with transit improvements. We are fortunate as well that our existing density means Zipcars are available, allowing for occasional auto use without the burden of ownership. As gas prices spiked, I found myself driving less and less. It was a relief to have that option. I achieved this by seeking my recreation closer to home and relying more on the Internet for shopping. I'm not sure that this shift is really a net energy savings though. Is it more efficient to order a necklace from Canada that is delivered by UPS than it would have been for me to drive around to several stores looking for the item I wanted? It doesn't seem like it. Ultimately, the need to reduce transportation costs would lead to economic shifts away from global markets to a return to more locally produced and exchanged goods. Perhaps more "cottage industries" will spring up in our business districts, where we can imagine that creative reuse and recycling of materials will be employed in the making of useful household products.

Another great asset we have, is our own Allendale farm, and the other open space and undeveloped land concentrated mostly in South Brookline. The ability to grow food locally will become more important as well as the need to be better long term stewards of our arable lands. These trends favor the small family farm and community gardening. Perhaps many more Brookline families will find themselves involved in growing food for themselves and the local markets and restaurants. Will we dedicate more of our park lands for this? Or will we simply accommodate gardens in yards, roofs or containers?

Shifting patterns of rainfall seemed evident last spring. If this trend continues, our flood prone areas will expand, and structures in vulnerable areas will have to be abandoned. We will see changes to the cycles of our plant life, resulting in different growth patterns. The palette of trees, bushes and perennials we take for granted as well suited to our climate will change, perhaps requiring us to replant and plan for continuous change. This additional care and replacement could become too burdensome economically and physically for us to keep up with, bringing unwanted change to our beloved leafy environment.

Surely the future holds many unknowns and will probably be very different from anything we can imagine. One thing is certain though and that is that Brookline will always be home to many individuals with the capacity for creative problem solving and commitment to community, two qualities that have been in evidence since 1705 and will serve us well into the future.