1/ Let's take a deeper dive into the completely bonkers TxDOT claim that expanding I-35 through AUSTIN will only increase GHG emissions by 14 percent over the baseline no-build scenario.
The claim hinges on very strange VMT results.
2/ First, we need to understand the scale of this project. It's an absolute beast. 365 FEET OF ROW!! Yellow = mainlanes; Green = frontage roads; Light Blue = untolled managed lanes.
But don't worry because the Dark Blue is a quiet, low-stress shared-use path.
3/ The justification for the expansion is that I-35 is terribly congested (TxDOT says the #3 most congested in the state) and that there will be even more driving/travel demand in the future.
Standard stuff.
4/ If a highway is already congested & you expect sustained regional growth (TxDOT estimates 1.5% compound annual growth), then expanding the highway will mean LOTS more driving compared to the no-build, right?
5/ According to TxDOT, no. This graph is a doozy. First, EV adoption will dramatically improve air quality. This is why the 2023 baseline (far left vertical bar) for Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) drops in the out years. So far, so good.
But then it gets weird.
6/ VMT (shown by the brown line) under the no-build and build scenarios will be the same. What? VMT will be the same 1.1B miles for the no-build and build scenarios in 2050. That's farcical.
7/ Stated differently, according to TxDOT, VMT will increase by 37% (800M to 1.1B) from the 2023 baseline through 2050, but there will be no difference between the VMT of the build and no-build alternatives.
That's bananas.
8/ The weirdness doesn't end there. TxDOT is widening I-35 in three segments covering 27 miles. That makes sense from a construction standpoint. But TxDOT breaks the VMT analysis up as well.
Um, what?
9/ This approach defies common sense. All but 1.5 miles of the 27-mile widening lies within the City of Austin. Why would TxDOT model each segment independently. They certainly won't function independently.
10/ And this brings us back to where we started. When you assume VMT will be equivalent between the build and no-build, you end up with the bonkers estimate that GHGs will be equivalent too.
11/ Federal law allows USDOT to delegate responsibility for NEPA to state DOTs. TxDOT entered the program in 2014 and extended in 2019 for another 5 years.
Results like these show FHWA should review TxDOT's NEPA Assignment authority.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ @aashtospeaks submitted a comment in response to USDOT's proposed GHG performance measure. AASHTO opens by saying they "strongly support the overall goal" of reducing GHGs. Do they really? Let's take a look.
2/ Welp, right off the bat we have a head-scratcher. "Not all state DOTs have the same ability to directly affect the reduction in GHGs..."
Every state controls **hundreds of billions of $$$** for building major roads and highways, so yes, they do.
3/ This bonkers position comes from the fact that DOTs think of GHG reductions almost exclusively in terms of EV adoption. Of course, this is ridiculous. DOTs are principally responsible for land use. Low-density sprawl doesn't happen without highways. Full stop.
1/ Let's talk about why the group of connectivity projects (some of them quite good) proposed by Central Houston for the massive $10B I-45 North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP) are lipstick on a pig.
2/ First, a bit of review. The monster I-45 expansion project would require the demolition of 1,079 housing units (of which 486 are public and/or low-income), 344 businesses, and 2 schools.
These are massive impacts.
3/ In response, Harris County filed for relief against TxDOT under NEPA and Section 4(f). A coalition of NGOs sued TxDOT under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Finally, FHWA requested TxDOT pause the project.
1/ In 1956, General Motors opened its famed Technical Center, which was designed by Eero Saarinen. The modernist architecture is spectacular. In the booklet Where Today Meets Tomorrow, GM refers to the facility as a "technopolis."
2/ I mean, dag.
3/ But when you pull back from the structures you see the catch.
1/ I'm trying to understand why the modernist vision for urban renewal after WWII was so powerful. I think a small part of it is how people respond to models/visuals. And this got me thinking about art. I dig this painting by Camille Pissarro of Rue Saint Lazare, 1893.
2/ The scene depicted is vibrant and captures the energy and shared use of the public right-of-way that appeals to urban reformers. But this controlled chaos isn't how we present renewal models. It's a bit of a Jackson Pollack.
3/ Now let's look at downtown Toledo, Ohio. The first photo was taken during the Christmas shopping season in 1959. The second is a street scene in 1950s and a streetcar line similar vintage. All are busy and a little messy. So what does urban renewal look like visually?
1/ Let's talk about the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and how a decision by this little-known corner of the federal government on a dispute between Amtrak and two Class I freight RR (CSX & NS) could have huge implications for passenger rail service nationally.
2/ The case before the STB is about a plan for Amtrak to run two round trips each day between New Orleans (NOLA) and Mobile. The service would operate on CSX and NS railroad tracks (i.e., these Class I carriers are the host railroads).
3/ Historically, private RR companies provided intercity passenger rail service. Eventually, this service was codified as part of a RR's common carrier obligation (CCO). (I believe COO was codified by Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, but correct me rail historians).
1/ Let's talk about how federal transportation funding can deepen social/mobility inequality. H.R. 6270 (AAIM Act) would provide grants for the planning, environmental review, and construction of eVTOL vertiports (i.e., pads for flying cars and drones).
2/ We need to start with some basics: (1) Flying cars will be an elite form of transportation; (2) they will not reduce surface congestion; and (3) they will deepen inequality and elite isolation as well as harm the environment. americanprogress.org/article/flying…
3/ But before eVTOLs can take hold they need subsidies -- lots of them. From my paper, "a state department of transportation may decide to build takeoff and landing pads..." The AAIM Act would fund exactly this type of infrastructure.