Wisconsin's largest city has seen recent debate over highway expansion plans amid environmental concerns, and a new study suggested for similar projects, some effects could be limited if narrower traffic lanes are prioritized.

The expansion plan in Milwaukee involves a stretch of Interstate 94. Research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health was more focused on urban roadways with speed limits of around 35 miles an hour.

Shima Hamidi, director of the Center for Climate-Smart Transportation and assistant professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University who helped lead the study, said switching from lane widths between 11 and 12 feet, long the norm, down to 9 feet helps reduce traffic collisions. She pointed out it also leaves more room for options not involving vehicles.

"It will help many people to switch from driving to other modes of transportation, such as biking and walking," Hamidi explained. "Which could result in greenhouse gas emission reductions from transportation."

The study contended with narrower lanes, people will not feel compelled to drive as fast and will be more alert. Hamidi acknowledged while the approach might slow traffic, past research shows minimal effects, which means the changes would not cancel out environmental benefits. Other studies have shown expanding the number of lanes, in general, does not reduce congestion.

Hamidi also noted transportation planners and engineers have expressed liability concerns, but she emphasized her team's study is one of the first to give cities and states firm data, on the traffic safety side, showing skinnier lanes are more effective.

"We are getting more and more interest from transportation planners, mostly at the local level," Hamidi observed. "Cities are eager and interested to really see how this could be implemented."

Hamidi added the next steps involve more research to quantify some of the other impacts, including air pollution. The study issued this month analyzed nearly 1,200 streets in seven cities around the
U.S. The findings come amid a gradual increase in pedestrian fatalities over the past decade.


get more stories like this via email

Two pieces of legislation in Connecticut could bolster public transportation if they make it through the General Assembly.

Senate Bill 277 would restore funding to Shore Line East to increase rail service. Ridership plummeted during the pandemic, though it's been growing modestly since then.

But as more people opt to work from home instead of commute, some question whether there's a need for more rail service.

Jay Stange, coordinator with the Transport Hartford Academy, said state investments can help transit lines attract the riders they need.

"Ridership on the Hartford Line, which has been supported by state investment, is up every year," said Stange. "We also are seeing huge increases on the Waterbury Line in Connecticut, where those service investments have been made. The bottom line is that if you don't have the service, you won't have the riders."

The 2023 budget cut funding for Shore Line East to 44% of what was required for pre-pandemic service.

The bill received wide support at a public hearing, but some residents don't agree that funding cuts cause low ridership.

Stange said restoring this funding would provide economic benefits through growing jobs and tourism.

Another bill incentivizes transit-oriented development.

House Bill 5390 would provide water and sewer funding for land-use planning and other developments, making it easier to build housing where transit and rail services exist.

Stange said it's time for the state to build better.

"Connecticut is starting to see," said Stange. "that the development pattern of the last 70 years - where we build new interstate to green-land development that's mostly single-family homes - is a money-losing proposition, in the long term."

Studies show transit-oriented development reduces air pollution and uses large plots of land to accommodate growing populations.

The bill faced opposition from communities concerned about the need for local control for developing these projects. The new version of the bill allows communities to "opt in" for these incentives instead.




get more stories like this via email

City and county governments are feeling the pinch of rising operating costs but in Wisconsin, federal incentives are driving a range of local projects, taking off some of the pressure in making communities economically viable.

Dane County is no stranger to embracing clean energy and federal aid from policies like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are spurring more activity.

Joe Parisi, Dane County executive, said there have been past government credits for things like solar installations and the latest approach is more expansive, with a robust list of those who can benefit.

"Everybody -- a business, a nonprofit, a church, a temple, even a government, and a local government -- gets 30% back on renewable energy projects," Parisi pointed out.

For example, a local construction company put solar arrays on several of its facilities. Parisi noted the new credits speed up the pace of reimbursements, creating more energy savings in the near future. Federal officials said demand has been strong for the programs but Parisi said one challenge is creating broader awareness so under-resourced areas can apply.

Locally, the website for the Dane County Office of Energy and Climate Change has posted details about project opportunities and investments. Beyond clean energy, Parisi emphasized the federal government's push for more "Made in America" manufacturing creates opportunities for local plants and regional economies.

"There's money to help retooling to manufacture (products)," Parisi stressed. "Then, there's a stronger market for those components now because they are made in America."

National polling shows Americans are greatly concerned about things like inflation but Parisi argued long-term investments stand to help reduce operating expenses for government agencies and businesses, hopefully keeping local taxes in check and providing savings for consumers.


get more stories like this via email

Federal and agency officials convened with stakeholders in Southeastern Utah to discuss how federal funds can help grow and strengthen local economies.

Lenise Peterman, mayor of Helper in Carbon County, said money from major legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act often bypasses communities like hers, which are often the most in need.

Peterman was part of the "Coal Country at a Crossroads Listening Session," examining the challenges of smaller, rural communities in addressing needs for clean energy, workforce and economic development, and infrastructure.

"I felt very optimistic, because I felt like I was no longer just this region, somewhere tucked away in the intermountain area, but somebody that they had to look at and see, and hear them say, 'I need to get this funding. How do I do this?'" Peterman recounted.

Like many rural towns, Helper has seen a declining coal industry. In 2022, five operators in Utah produced coal worth $504 million, down 15% from the previous year. Peterman pointed out power plants and coal mines have traditionally been the sources of well-paid jobs, but communities like hers are figuring out how to adapt with the times and ensure people can continue to call rural Utah home.

Peterman said she considers the listening session a success, as it brought together federal officials and local leaders to focus on possible solutions. She noted one message was the government may need to do more to ensure communities like Helper, as she put it, "don't fall through the cracks."

"How do we equate a rural community with these more urban areas that have headcount, and have people on staff who can look into these federal funding opportunities and collect them?" Peterman suggested.

She added she works with a team of 15 other individuals but is the sole grant writer for her town. Legislation in Congress, called the "Rebuild Rural America Act," would have allocated money to help smaller communities compete for federal dollars but got stuck in a Senate committee last year.


get more stories like this via email