For the Glory of Old State

The views expressed here are entirely my own and do not represent any other group or organization.

At 3:05 PM on March 12, 2019, I received a disturbing e-mail from our Society for American Archaeology President, Susan Chandler.

SAA is aware of the disheartening termination of archaeological staff at the University of Kentucky. We have released a statement, available on our website, and sent emails directly to the University of Kentucky President, Provost, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and Anthropology Chair. If you have a connection to the University, the Kentucky Archaeology Survey, or the Program for Archaeological Research, please consider also sharing your experiences.

I knew some of the staff in the UK Archaeology Survey. My recent experience working with Indiana University of Pennsylvania suggested something was odorous.  Over the next few days, I took to my pen and dashed off a letter to the editor of the Lexington paper and a smidge more civil letter to the Dean of the UK College of Arts and Sciences.  It made me feel good, but had no effect whatsoever.  The News-Gazette did not run the letter and I received a canned response from the University, saying in effect, “We got this. Butt out.”

My indignant and ultimately useless letter to the editor of the Lexington News-Gazette, dated March 14th:

UK’s Plan to reorganize with William S. Webb Museum by eliminating the Kentucky Archaeological Survey is misguided and harmful to the citizens of Kentucky.  For more than 20 years, KAS has provided its students with hands-on experience in Kentucky archaeology.  KAS brought new finds to the public and assisted state agencies and numerous local nonprofits in carrying out their missions. KAS has saved taxpayers money and helped these organizations save the past for the future.

Land grant universities have a special responsibility to its citizens, to improve lives through excellence in education, research and creative work.  Shortly, UK will be walking away from a program that does all of this.  As a resident of Pennsylvania, I can tell you what your future holds.  Pennsylvania’s land grant university abandoned its role in Pennsylvania archaeology 30 years ago.  Its anthropology department now studies every place on the globe except ours and every people except Native Americans.  As a practicing archaeologist, I can tell you now that any promises made by UK regarding the new research program for your history and heritage will be empty promises. And as someone who built partnerships between state agencies and universities that care about their public charge, I can tell you that Kentucky will be poorer for the change, both financially and in its heritage.  William S. Webb spent his life working with TVA and the Civil Works Administration to bring Kentucky’s past to its residents. He would be appalled.

Some of us had various theories as to why this mowing had taken place, but I had my own ideas, as it brought flashbacks of my old, dear Alma Mater, Penn State University.  UK was not acting irrationally within its own paradigm, its own bubble, which can be summarized as, “Research good.  Cultural resource management bad.”  This is the same sentiment as encountered at good, old State.

In the interest of full disclosure, I received my Master’s and Doctorate from Penn State, graduating in 1986.  I had some fine professors, including James Hatch, who did not share the same disdain for practical research as some of his peers. I came to Penn State with a focus on Mesoamerican archaeology and an interest in state formation, two research areas I picked up while an undergraduate at Rice University, under Rich Blanton, Gregory A. Johnson, and Frank Hole then later at CUNY, Hunter College under Blanton and Johnson again.  However, during the middle of my first year, I grew more interested in North America and the formation of ranked societies after discovering Lewis Henry Morgan.

I received a first rate education from Penn State from a group of fine professors who emphasized the 3- or 4-field approach to anthropological archaeology. They prepared me not one whit for my first and second real jobs, working for the Maryland Geological Survey and then at PennDOT, managing cultural resources programs that included archaeology.  It was OJT all the way, learning one mistake at a time. At meetings, when encountering one of said professors, they uniformly gave me the same look a dog owner gives to a puppy that missed the paper.

I have a hard time disliking the professors* that poured knowledge into my head, especially with regard to cultural ecology. But over a career of 40 years, I have grown to feel that their biases against practical research were not only misguided, but harmful.  The second issue I had with the Penn State Faculty (James Hatch partially excused) was a complete disdain for Pennsylvania archaeology.  As Penn State is a land grant institution, and still the premier university in the Commonwealth, and still a recipient of at least some state aid, I find this lack of interest damning.

*with respect to academics and not some of their other behaviors

One incident should make my case.  A few years ago, while at PennDOT, we had a vexing problem with one of our enhancement projects, a bike trail.  It turns out the bike trail would adversely impact a significant archaeological site and there was really no way to design around it.  A data recovery was called for, but the sponsor, in this case College Township in Center County, PA, had not budgeted for the extra work required to get these federal funds.  Whether they had budgeted or not wouldn’t have made any difference as the cost of the archaeology would have been several times the total cost of the project and would have thus killed it in its crib.

We thrashed around for a solution for some time, but since the project was on the Penn State Campus, we decided to approach the Anthropology Department to see if they could mitigate the archaeological site that was on their campus for a project that would benefit mostly their students. After all, that’s where the archaeologists are.  With a field school on campus, they could have had their cup of coffee and gotten in a few units before the first cigarette.  WE WERE LAUGHED OUT OF THE ROOM!

Ultimately, we were able to arrange for Juniata College to do the same field school on the Penn State Campus for College Township benefit, and the project won a Governor’s Award for partnerships (but not with Penn State).

Which brings me to the trigger for this post, and it was not the University of Kentucky debacle.  George R. Milner, a professor of anthropology at Penn State, was recently elected to the National Academy of Sciences.  He has had a distinguished career at Penn State, the PSU press release noting 10 books, a hundred articles, service on numerous boards, and membership as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Chopped liver, he is not.

However, in perusing his long curriculum vitae, in over 24 pages of single spaced entries for publications and meetings papers, he has exactly one presented paper on the subject of Pennsylvania archaeology, in 1996, and one book review, in press.  No field work conducted in Pennsylvania, and not one graduate student who made Pennsylvania the subject of their thesis. It’s not nothing, but as close to nothing as you could get in a long and broad career at University Park, Pennsylvania.

I don’t know Dr. Milner well. We are not friends, barely acquaintances, and this is not a knock on his career or distinguishedness. His election to NAS speaks for itself.  I have no reason to doubt he is a good person.  But I do believe he is a symptom of a bigger problem that is rooted in hiring decisions at the “University” and reward criteria at the “Academy.”  Until these are changed, the Dr. Milners of the world will continue to be nourished and rewarded, and the basic precepts of where and why to conduct archaeology will remain unchallenged.

At the Society for American Archaeology Meetings in April in Albuquerque, there was a side meeting of some very smart and very well meaning archaeologists representing the Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis.  

The Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis (CfAS) promotes and funds innovative, collaborative synthetic research that rapidly advances our understanding of the past in ways that contribute to solutions to contemporary problems, for the benefit of society in all its diversity. This is accomplished through the analysis and synthesis of existing archaeological and associated data from multiple cultures, at multiple spatial and temporal scales.

Coalition for Archaeological Synthesis: http://archsynth.org

Basically, these are archaeologists who think that the field can actually do something to better the world, especially if done together with other scientists.  It is a worthy project that shows how archaeology actually adds value to collaborative problem solving, given that we can see the world broadly and through a ridiculously long time period.  The subtext of the concept is that archeology is usually under attack as a field of study and that we all need to up our game to stick around.

Sitting here in Pennsylvania, far removed from the Annual Meeting, and only freshly removed from the State Meeting, I wonder if we are up to the job.  After all, the State Meeting started yet another scrum over where the Monongahela Peoples came from and where they went.  We are still working out basic chronology and culture history stuff here, let alone evolution and culture change.  It’s been this way as long as I’ve been in Pennsylvania and I suspect it will continue for a while.

And why would this be so? Are the archaeologists that study Pennsylvania particularly stupid?  I doubt it. Are they not trying hard enough? Don’t think that’s the problem. Is Pennsylvania such a backwater that there’s nothing worth studying here anyway?  Lewis Henry Morgan didn’t think so and neither do I.  What is missing from here that is not missing out in the Southwest (besides beautiful pueblo dwellings)?

My own theory stems from a brief discussion carried on during the CfAS meeting, specifically dealing with finding a permanent home for the CfAS institution, in other words giving it a place to be.  The leaders of the discussion rattled off a number of premier archaeological research institutions.  Penn State was not among them, not because they aren’t a premier research institution, but because the archaeologists there do not have a stake in the prehistory of their turf nor a desire to raise the flag for applied research to solve real problems.  Note that this is not the case a few buildings down from Carpenter on the University Park Campus, where the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences has just established a dual title doctoral degree program in Climate Science.  Thank you, Michael Mann.

Of course, I’m picking on Penn State and Dr. Milner. They are easy and familiar targets.  The problem is much, much deeper.  Going back 100 years, what higher educational institution has committed to a long-term program of research into the prehistory and archaeology of Pennsylvania?  All of the heavy lifting had been undertaken by Museums, specifically the Pennsylvania Historical Commission and later the State Museum, and the Carnegie Museum. This is the quintessential early 20thcentury model – prior to the era of university trained archaeologists, the museums took the lead.  Every so often, there is a flash of interest at a local university, which lasts a generation (one professor), then fades. Mostly state schools, by the way, and Temple occasionally, but not currently.  The heavy hitters – Pitt, Penn State, Temple, Penn– are absent from the field of battle and have been absent since day 1. The long-term institutional commitment has simply not been there. Whether this is a chance artifact of history, it’s hard to say, but it still influences everything done today.  This is critical, since real archaeological progress is expensive, requires people, not just one scientist, and long-term commitment from the administration, and I mean long-term by archaeological standards, not 2-3 years.

The future of American Archaeology is not pretty, despite recent advances in technology and DNA.  Universities are churning out PhDs in record numbers despite a shrinking job market.  The only field that has shown stability, if not growth, has been in cultural resources management, but most programs do not prepare their students for careers there. That was the case in 1986, when I got out, and sadly is the case 30 years later. The arms race in academic research rewards the exotic, the sexy, the new, not basic knowledge building and certainly not local prehistory.  Students do not get the important hands-on practice that professional archaeology demands. I have hired my share of staff archaeologists.  It is shocking the number of highly educated PhD’s I have reviewed and interviewed who are unable to perform the basic duties of the job.  

The bottom line is that the hiring decisions by universities and the reward systems for tenure and recognition need to change radically.  Local archaeology needs to be given the same respect as the highlands of some distant land. Cultural resources management needs to be the integral part of training for the jobs that will be out there.

Of course, all of this can be laid at the feet of Abraham Lincoln.  He created the Land Grant Universities in 1862, but forgot to give them courage. He created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, but forgot to give it a heart.  The university administrators of the world appear to operate without a brain among them. The Imperial Wizard would be appalled.

The Penn State Alma Mater

by Fred Lewis Pattee

For the glory of old State,
For her founders strong and great,
For the future that we wait,
Raise the song, raise the song. 

Sing our love and loyalty,
Sing our hopes that, bright and free,
Rest, O Mother dear, with thee,
All with thee, all with thee. 

(Softly) 

When we stood at childhood’s gate,
Shapeless in the hands of fate,
Thou didst mold us, dear old State,
Dear old State, dear old State. 

(Louder) 

May no act of ours bring shame
To one heart that loves thy name,
May our lives but swell thy fame,
Dear old State, dear old State. 

Synergy Drive

Synergy– NOUN

Def – The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects, i.e.,‘the synergy between artist and record company’ (English Oxford Living Dictionary)

Here we are in a country with more wheat, and more corn, more money in the banks, and more cotton, more everything in the world. There’s not a product that you can name that we haven’t got more of it than any country ever had on the face of the earth and yet we’ve got people starving. We’ll hold the distinction of being the only nation in the history of the world that ever went to the poor house in an automobile. – Will Rogers (1931)

Some weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend professional meetings in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.  Uniontown is a delightful old community, the seat of Fayette County and a waystation for the original National Road, now Route 40.  Founded on July 4th1776, the town now has 10,000 inhabitants and a rich history which intersects with The French and Indian War, the underground railroad, coal and mining history and labor unrest.  Arguably its most famous son was George C. Marshall, Eisenhower’s boss during WWII and the architect of the eponymously named Plan that saved Europe from economic catastrophe after said war.

The meetings were held at a hotel a few miles west of town and outside of the Route 119 belt in what could be best described as a 10-year old Miracle Mile-type development including a Walmart, shopping centers, chain restaurants, and two other hotels.  At least that’s what I could see perched on the front entrance of the hotel overlooking US 40 below. (http://www.racfpa.org/news/2008/030808WalmartOpens.pdf)

I was on my own for dinner and decided in the interest of time to take a meal at the Applebee’s off in the distance to the right.  I also thought I might get something for breakfast at the Walmart, which my laptop assured me was also a grocery store.  Those of you that know me, know I am a stubborn person and in fear of having my 66-year old legs lock up during long meetings, I decided that I needed to walk.  The total distance was only about a mile, so off I went.

Once I had left the lobby of the hotel, I discovered the sidewalks disappeared.  No problem.  I marched down the side of the potted and cracked entrance road, looking like a poor man’s I-78.  Reaching US 40, I availed myself of both the crosswalk and the pedestrian signal crossing, reaching the other side of the road with no concerns and no knowledge of what awaited.

Our helpful signal crossing
My hotel on the upper left. Sidewalks anyone?

Oddly, the sidewalk I expected did not appear immediately, but about 20 yards ahead. Putting my feet firmly on concrete and off the road, I continued my foray toward dinner and groceries. Gazing ahead, there was a side road that seemed to be in the direction of my planned meal, along Synergy Drive. That sounded promising. After all, Synergy Drive is what Toyota calls their hybrid system we have on our Prius.  As I made my turn into Synergy Drive, I searched for a sidewalk, or at least a path to be had.  Actually, on the side facing traffic where you would normally walk, there was a guiderail protecting cars from driving into a ditch, but also protecting any perspective pedestrians from perambulating into that portion of the path. Stubbornness put me into an unsafe situation, so of course I pressed on.

Our Synergy Drive

In addition to walking in the road that had no shoulder, it was dusk, no lighting except for the businesses, and I wasn’t all that visible.  Cars seemed to see me though and I made it to the crossroad with my destination and dinner on the other side.  Crosswalks anyone? Nope.  Traffic island? Nope.  Cars zipping in both directions in and out? Yep.  Patience bought me time to get across safely and take my meal.  I have nothing against Applebee’s but that is not my usual choice.  When placed against All-Star Asian Buffet, Arbys, Bob Evans, IHOP, and Sonic, it became my least worst choice.  I was looking for a beer and something lighter, like a salad.

What passes for a sidewalk

Having eaten, I wormed my way further into the shopping center, toward the Walmart and breakfast foods.  In addition to the Shopping Center having no sidewalks and no crosswalks, the roads had been neatly and carefully gridded so that each street was separated vertically from the next, much like the terraced fields in the highlands of Mexico.  Each road had no shoulder, only a guiderail keeping you from a 10 foot drop. Thoughtful for driver safety, but not traversable on foot.

Because you are reading this after the fact, you can assume I made the trip to the Walmart and back to my room.  Cheese, fruit, yoghurt.  Mostly retracing my route, I did find remnants of worn grass where other adventurers had ventured.

I would summarize the trip as essentially impassable on foot.  No pedestrian access, no sidewalks, no crosswalks, no shoulder, no lighting.  This was surprising as there were two other hotels in the same complex as the shopping center.  On the trip down and back, I saw exactly one other pedestrian on foot. Actually it was a teenager on a skateboard and therefore not a pedestrian. How did any of the other guests get their meals?  Were they all hermetically sealed into the hotels?  Were they on complimentary breakfast-only diets?  I didn’t want to think that they would drive the couple hundred feet from their lobbies to these establishments.

And what establishments – chain restaurants notable for high sugar, high fat, high carbohydrate meals.  When checking out potential places to eat near the hotel, I came across the Route 40 Diner, less than a mile from the hotel.  Real diners are a gift from the gods and I had it penciled in for at least 5 of the 4 meals I had planned to take.  A (historic) diner meal on the National Road.  What the map failed to disclose was the most recent review was 5 months old and the place had closed,  probably from competition from the chains.

For me, the whole episode equates to what we used to call a first world problem.  I was minorly inconvenienced.  But I do wonder what logic prevents groups of guests in the three neighboring hotels from being able to walk a short distance to their amenities, my polite choice for these chain restaurants and Walmart? And logic was in play as this was clearly not an accidental development.  Everything was organized for vehicular traffic flow and I’m sure it never occurred to the planners and developers that people might want to not be in their vehicles 24/7.

Synergy – The interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

Nowhere in the definition does it require that the combined effect of synergy be positive. America has an obesity crisis (among many crises).  In Pennsylvania, Fayette County is ground zero. 2015 health data has Fayette County’s obesity rate at 41%, highest in the state.  Fayette Countians exercise less and smoke more.  Should I add that Fayette County with a 17.9% poverty rate is the third poorest in the State. Only Philadelphia and Forest Counties have a higher poverty rate.  

That same 2015 survey measured the Food Environment Index, which is a combined measure of access to healthy foods and food insecurity.  Fayette County was second only to Philadelphia as having the worst Food Environment Index.  Leaving aside the fact this new development was a “good food” desert, the Walmart grocery was completely packed.  But the produce and dairy selections were somewhat limited, highly prepackaged, and non-organic, although I could find the basics. 

So to address poverty, obesity, and food insecurity, the planners and developers in Fayette County throw out another strip mall development to accommodate visitors and offers service jobs for the locals. The same poor planning that fosters obesity, food deserts, and the low paying jobs that keep people poor.  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also participated with almost $20 million in redevelopment funds and an extension road to connect the development to the Mon-Fayette Turnpike Road.  Synergy Drive.

The tradition of screwing the poor is a long one. On the site of this 2008 shopping center development was the County Poor House and Farm, built in 1825.  The imposing building appears to have been torn down, and the farm with it. The complex also contained a burial ground most likely for those unfortunate individuals who died at the Poor House or could not afford a decent Christian burial.  Most of the graves were unmarked but this did not deter the County Redevelopment Authority, who owned the land from redeveloping it.  Were all of these unmarked graves with no apparent descendants or advocates carefully located and reburied?  As an archaeologist in Pennsylvania, I would say unlikely, especially referencing the cryptic statement from Larry Golden (see link below on US Cemetery Project).  You might say that this redevelopment not only succeeded in creating jobs and putting Fayette County’s best foot forward, but also succeeded in erasing the past, specifically the history of the county poor. 

Fayette County Home, early 20th Century
Fayette County Cemetery Memorial

The United States Cemetery Project

The wealthy always have options, whether it’s eating at one of the good restaurants in Uniontown or having the time to drive to the better supermarkets.  The poor will always be with us.  But between the poor houses of the 19thcentury and the poor planning of the 21stcentury, why do we have to be so systematically and cooperatively oppressive? Synergy Drive, indeed.

2019 Vicinity
1931 Vicinity
1939 Vicinity

Rural Agricultural Landscapes – Part I

Rural Agricultural Landscapes and the Bridges Therein

Pennsylvania is a large and old state with a sizeable agricultural presence, and loads of older bridges that connect these farms to market. As PennDOT attempts to maintain its infrastructure, the need to address these rural bridges is clear, but as historic resources they can be important not only individually, but as contributing to a larger rural historic landscape.  This blog explores some of the issues related to considering rural historic landscapes (RHL) within the National Register, and how to parse out whether a rural bridge should be contributing or not contributing to that RHL, i.e., a large historic district.  As a historical note, this was and I believe still is a live issue between PennDOT and FHWA, and the SHPO, which started over a woodlot up in Centre County.  Although this discussion is focused on bridges and eastern rural historic landscapes, I think there may be some larger generalizations that can be drawn. Enjoy.

One of the partnerships that PennDOT, FHWA, and the SHPO entered was in the creation of a statewide rural agricultural context.  Pennsylvania was and is an agricultural state, with agriculture and its associated industries provide a $135.7 billion annual economic impact, representing close to 18% of Pennsylvania’s gross state product. This massive multi-year effort was led by Dr. Sally McMurry, a Penn State History Professor with special expertise in the history of agriculture.  She divided the Commonwealth into 16 distinct regions, each with its own agricultural signature.  Dr. McMurry and the SHPO then developed Registration Requirements for both farmsteads and (smaller) rural historic districts, which form the Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF).

http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/agriculture/index.html

This MPDF has been in operation since 2012 and as would be expected from a MPDF has provided a roadmap to assessing eligibility, especially in application to individual farmsteads. It gives some guidance on how rural historic districts could be considered under Criterion A. (McMurry 2012a, 2012b). The MPDF describes a historic agricultural district as “a group of farms, which share common architectural and agricultural landscape features; are linked together by historic transportation corridors… and together express characteristic features of local historical agricultural patterns.”  Registration Requirements statewide for Criterion A, Agriculture notes the following for individual properties:

…Criterion A significance should be assessed in relation to how a given property typifies a farming system, not in relation to whether a property is exceptional or unusual. A property should exemplify a farming system in all its aspects.  The totality of a property’s representation in the areas of production, labor patterns, land tenure, mechanization, and cultural traditions will determine its National Register eligibility. (McMurry 2012b Section F:1)

Characterizing a Landscape

Unfortunately, the MPDF is better developed for individual properties or what appears to be McMurry’s conception of an archetypical district, i.e. a group of farms clustered together.  When considering a rural historic landscape, however, a different set of rules may be needed.  The National Register defines a Landscape as:

a geographic area that historically has been used by people, or shaped or modified by human activity, occupancy, or intervention, and that possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and structures, roads and waterways, and natural features. (p. 3)

Eleven characteristics have been developed for “reading” the Landscape and understanding the forces that shape it – four of the characteristics are processes; the remaining seven are physical components.   The processes link to the physical components to form a unified whole (p. 4). 

The process of evaluating Landscapes entails “three major activities: defining significance, assessing historic integrity, and selecting boundaries” (p. 12).  Furthermore, “significance, integrity, and boundaries depend upon the presence of tangible landscape features, and the evidence of the processes, cultural and natural, that have shaped the landscape” (p. 12).

Can we build on McMurry’s work to scale up what is defined as a rural historic district or further to a Landscape?  It is reasonable to use the same Criterion A significance statement as the Registration requirement.  [Obviously, there are 3 other main Criterion for significance than A, but this is our starting point.  Perhaps at a later date, we can review RHLs under the other three frames.]  The MPDF defines a farming system as the framework for understanding how agriculture in Pennsylvania evolved, each agricultural region containing a distinctive evolutionary trajectory for a farming system, with its own chronological development and distinguishing characteristics.  In the same way that individual farms or McMurry’s district could express the farming system in its region, a Landscape could also express the region’s evolutionary trajectory, or story.

Significance

The majority of rural historic landscapes that would be considered here are significant for agriculture, under Criterion A (See p. 21 for Areas of Significance for Rural Landscapes). Significance for a Landscape under Criterion A is understood within the historic context of the region’s farming system trajectory through its landscape characteristics.

Many rural properties contain landscape characteristics related to agricultural land uses and practices. Eligibility for significance in agriculture on a local level depends onseveral factors:

  • First, the characteristics must have served or resultedfrom an important event, activity, ortheme in agricultural development as recognized by the historic contextsfor the area. 
  • Second, the property must have had a direct involvementin the significant events or activities by contributing to the area’s economy,productivity, or identity as an agricultural community.  
  • Third, throughhistoric landscape characteristics, theproperty must cogently reflect the period of time in which the importantevents took place. (McMurry 2012b:13)

When working within the MPDF, importance often hinged on productivity measures, i.e., was the farm successful.  In the frame of a large rural historic landscape, is that even a useful measure?  And if not, what would be?  

The basis for significance for the farmstead is whether the production values were above average. This doesn’t really work in evaluating rural historic landscapes, but there may be a surrogate methodology that compares one valley against the next in terms of prosperity.  When looking at a landscape as a potential historic rural agricultural district, if we bring forward the notion of the district as as system, then we can open a door to surrogate measures of prosperity.  One is the richness of functions within the (agricultural) system.  Does it have a grange, a general store, a mill, a saddlery, churches, a hotel?  Is there a hierarchy of settlement within the district, i.e., does it have a village or town as well as crossroads communities?  We would expect that the more prosperous historic districts would have these features and that the less prosperous ones have a stripped down functional environment, maybe reduced to single farms and a mill.  It may be possible to set registration requirements for different landscapes within each of the agricultural regions and within each time period, to compare in a more effective and quantitative way one landscape to the next.

Integrity

McClelland, et al (n.d.) offers a reasonable and useful approach to assessing historic integrity (pp. 21-24).  For rural agricultural landscapes, qualities of location, setting, and design are less likely to be affected by modern development, although design could be significantly altered by modern agricultural practices.  Comparsions of modern and historic aerial photography can provide clues as to whether a landscape has undergone significant transformation.

Materials and association could also be vastly different from the period of significance especially if the farming systems have radically changed.  In fact, the trajectory of the history of farming in Pennsylvania is one of several major transformations statewide, from regionalism and the local mix of crops and husbandry, to a 20thcentury modernization and homogenization and pull toward external markets, to an ever increased specialization and concentration as farms become less self-reliant for animal feed, pasture, fertilizer, and family provisions.

And of course, development in the form of farms subdivided for housing, resource extraction (such as natural gas), public utilities, and other industrial development can also diminish historic integrity.  At the end, the landscape has the same challenge that smaller rural historic districts have. Can it retain the general character and feeling for its period of significance?

Next: Part II

Bibliography

McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick

n.d.              Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Register Bulletin 30. U.S. Department of the Interior.

McMurry, Sally

2012a          MPDF Introduction and Overview. Agricultural Resources of Pennsylvania, c.1700-1960.  Multiple Property Documentation Form, U.S. Department of the Interior.

2012b          Agricultural Resources of Pennsylvania, c.1700-1960. Multiple Property Documentation Form, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Sebastian, Lynne

2004            What is the Preservation Payoff? Remarks presented in a session entitled An Alternate View of the Section 106 Review Process, Appendix D, A Working Conference on Enhancing and Streamlining, Section 106 Compliance and Transportation Project Delivery, Santa Fe, NM February, 2004. SRI Foundation

U.S. Department of the Interior

1991a          How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior.

1991b          How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. National Register Bulletin 16A. U.S. Department of the Interior.

The PennDOT and IUP Partnership: A Personal History – VI (Conclusion)

Steady, Podner, Steady: The Fourth and Fifth IUP Contracts (2012-)

On February 10, 2012, PennDOT and IUP renewed the partnership with another 5-year MOU (20120112).  In most ways, this MOU mimicked previous ones in terms of scope, but added more formally a geomorphology component and a geophysical testing component.  The geomorphology component was added to provide additional flexibility in choice of geomorphologist, in particular since Dr. Vento was particularly busy with PennDOT and other agency studies.  IUP agreed to add additional geomorphologists to the Agreement with subcontracts.  The geophysical component was new and rather exciting.  As a feature of IUP’s Anthropology program, faculty and staff had acquired both the machinery and skill to conduct magnetic resistivity, ground penetrating radar, and other remote surveying technology.  GPR was particularly useful for identifying cemetery situations and also buried historic archaeological foundations.  We at PennDOT would not have been able to maintain the equipment and skill set on our own.

For the five years of this MOU, the chief focus of activities was on the PHAST program, geomorphological studies, and winding up the collections backlog.  This period of the MOU was one of refinement and adjustment rather than innovation, as we perfected the PHAST program and managed the geomorphological assignments. The curation backlog was largely completed by 2012, but inevitably we kept uncovering old collections that had been missed in the original survey of outstanding collections.  As our goal was to completely bring the older collections up to date and submitted to the State Museum, we continued to make adjustments in task assignments, largely wrapping up activities in 2013.  Later we discovered that the Blue Route Collections, from the 1980s were still not processed. It was a large collection and we have since managed to put our arms around that problem working with Engineering District 6-0.

In 2017, we renewed the MOU again for another 5 years (MOU 201721), largely keeping the same terms and goals as MOU 20120112. This is the current MOU with IUP as of this writing (2019).  As with the previous MOU, the current MOU is also one of adjustment and refinement on the tasks assigned, which are primarily the PHAST program and geomorphological studies.  The Byways to the Past Conference, in its current form as part of the Statewide Heritage Conference, has been taken over by Preservation Pennsylvania, and is no longer a responsibility of IUP.  The collections backlog program – it is worthy of the title “program” given the length of time it lasted and the total number of collections processed – had been concluded.  Byways to the Past booklets are continuing to be published, and IUP remains the publisher of last resort, after first having the consultant be responsible for printing, and then considering PennDOT’s Graphic Services Unit to complete the printing. The CD series is coming to a close, as technological advances now permit these reports to be housed within the CRGIS as downloads.  The IUP Agreement continues to be available for special assignments and is used for such. In addition, PennDOT’s cultural resources unit continues to send a representative to IUP annually to participate in the review of the MA program.

Lessons Learned from this Partnership

I will be participating in a roundtable on university partnerships at the Society for American Archaeology Meetings coming up in April.  It is fair to ask with the distance of time whether there is anything to be learned from this particular partnership over the last 20 years?  I had a front row seat at all of this and often was the individual making key decisions on strategy and direction, so you would think this would be easy.  It is not.  The simple route would be to create a totally revisionist history where each decision and step was brilliantly thought out in advance, with long-term strategic goals, inevitably ending up where we are today, gloriously successful.  

It didn’t happen that way.

Having a front-row seat doesn’t necessarily give you perspective.  Furthermore none of us were hovering over our heads thinking about what we were thinking. We kept trying things until something worked, but didn’t spend time conducting a post-mortem analysis.  With the perspective of 20 years, I may be able to reconstruct what I felt and what I was thinking, but that doesn’t necessarily get you to interpretation and understanding.  I can more or less spell out the emic in this partnership game, but I may or may not be able to get to the etic, where we could more broadly talk about generalizations that might be applied to any partnership. Here goes.

First, just what is a partnership?  We can start with Merriam-Webster:

1the state of being a partner PARTICIPATION//scientists working in partnership with each other

2aa legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business //began a legal partnership with his uncle

bthe persons joined together in a partnership //the partnership computes its net income … in a manner similar to  that of an individual— J. K. Lasser

3a relationship resembling a legal partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities //The band has maintained a successful partnership for 10 years.

That’s what I love about dictionary definitions. They always throw you deeper into the thicket.  Just what is a partner?

1:    archaic  one that shares PARTAKER

2aone associated with another especially in an action ASSOCIATECOLLEAGUE//our military partners throughout the world

beither of two persons who dance together

cone of two or more persons who play together in a game against an opposing side //partners in card games

da person with whom one shares an intimate relationship one member of a couple //Evan and his partner are going on a Caribbean cruise.

3a member of a partnership especially in a business // partners in a law firm also  such membership

4: one of the heavy timbers that strengthen a ship’s deck to support a mast —usually used in plural

Now, we’re getting somewhere. I actually like all of these definitions and I think all are relevant.  A partnership is a sharing relationship.  Each party needs to feel that it is getting something out of the partnership.  Partnerships are like a dance or a game, which is to say that they are not static relationships.  Partnerships are always in motion because nothing ever stays constant.  Working in state government, I also think of partnerships as playing against an opposing side, trying to make something work against the inertia of governmental mediocrity.  Even definition 4 is relevant. Partnerships need to do things, whether it is to support a mast so the ship can sail, or support a program so it can fulfill its mission.

Partnerships solve problems. Yes, the first rule of seeking a partnership is that one is needed to solve a specific problem.  Not all problems are solved with a partnership, but a partnership in search of a problem is in trouble out of the gate.  Sometimes the problem is concrete, such as how to staff a new program. Sometimes the problem is more abstract, such as building credibility in the larger preservation community.  It can even be the need for constant improvement.  Edward Deming is the founder of the Total Quality Movement, which in the 1950’s brought Japanese manufacturing back into prominence, and has influenced business thinking in the US for decades. His 14 points are worth restating here, and they were on my cubicle wall during my entire career at PennDOT:

  1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.  
  2. Adopt the new philosophy. 
  3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place. 
  4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust. 
  5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs. 
  6. Institute training on the job. 
  7. Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. 
  8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company. 
  9. Break down barriers between departments.
  10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force. 
  11. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality. 
  12. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective. 
  13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement. 
  14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody’s job. 

Number 5 is central to developing partnerships:  Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costsThe need for quality improvement cannot be achieved only by relying on internal resources in the work unit.  I would argue that you cannot substantially improve a process or overall quality without engaging in partnerships.  

In government, there is a natural tendency to stay in our lanes, to stay in our silos.  Government is built for inertia.  My first problem was that I couldn’t stand the notion of staying in the work situation outlined in Part I of the series.  The very first partnerships formed in cultural resources were with the SHPO, in the form of a programmatic agreement to move us past the shoveling of dubious documents to another desk for approvals.  In 1997, we had a problem with not having long-term staffing to support our newly minted programmatic agreement.   We thought that IUP had the best ability to create staff, and as a university had the stability to honor a long-term commitment.

Seek best fit through mutual benefit.  As clichéd as it may be, you can’t have a partnership without partners, but some partners are better than others. In approaching potential partners, it was necessary to visualize how the partnership would benefit them and to communicate that vision.  Otherwise, why would the other party give you the time of day?  IUP also had a problem to solve.  They are a state agency and have a mission to provide assistance to other state agencies.  They need to be relevant in today’s world, not just the Academy.  Evidence of that need was the existence of Archaeological Services.

Partnerships take time to build.  Our first meeting with IUP was in the Fall of 1997. The first MOU was executed May, 1999, almost 2 years later.  Actually that was rather fast.  Other partnerships we had usually took 3 years.  Never expect to be able to enter into a partnership (at least not a meaningful one) quickly.  Think about it.  You have two different institutions, each with its own management and administration, rules, lawyers, etc.  Each institution has to move outside of its comfort zone, and regardless of how often or how loud management says it is 100% behind innovation or whatever the current best new thing is, they usually don’t mean it.   After going through Graduate School and working with IUP and other universities for nearly 40 years, I can safely say that universities are every bit as bureaucratic and administratively difficult as PennDOT.  The only difference seems to be in the mission.  At any number of occasions, I could have legitimately given up on the partnership as being simply too hard to execute.  So could Bev Chiarulli, Phil Neusius, and the Anthropology Department.  Commitment, constancy of purpose, and useful streaks of stubbornness brought us through.

Real partnerships add value. In building a partnership, we had to find a way to make 1 + 1 = 3, to create value out of the partnership that transcended the simple transactional nature of the MOU.  At first, the added value was quite abstract, and the transactional nature of the MOU was right in front of us.  Find and rent us QPs and we will pay you.  As we crafted the MOU though, we made sure that the terms would allow us to engage in other mutually beneficial activities.  One of the first was the joint Byways to the Past Conference held in 2000 on the IUP campus in the newly built Eberly Business School facilities. Benefits accrued to PennDOT for hosting a transportation conference, but also to IUP for same. In addition, IUP’s Anthropology Department could show to the Dean and Administration that it was working to serve another state agency, bringing in a little money as well, and furthering IUP’s educational mission.

The Second MOU, sans QPs, also created value, especially in the conduct of the legacy archeological collections project.  This employed IUP students giving them hands on experience working with collections. It kept IUP’s lab busy, and Archaeological Services billable and important.  PennDOT got necessary work completed at a fraction of the cost we would have incurred had we gone the private consultant route.  Again, 1 + 1 = 3.  This was repeated with the Third MOU that brought geomorphological services and PHAST to the table, and which was continued into the Fourth and current MOUs.

Partnerships transcend a business relationship. In building a partnership, it was important to find a way to let both partners feel that they were coming out ahead in the arrangement.   In building and maintaining any relationship, whether it be a marriage or a partnership between two agencies, the same key ingredients appear over and over again: honesty, trust, communication, commitment.  This is not surprising nor should it be.  With IUP, we met early and often, exchanged a lot of phone calls and e-mails. We wrote out drafts of terms for the MOU and other supporting documents.  Each of us had to work our management to sell the concept and get them on board.  

Once the partnership was in place, it required care and maintenance.  When IUP established a Master’s of Applied Archaeology Program, they invited us to sit on an advisory board to guide the program.  We jumped at the chance and never missed a meeting.  When I retired I made sure that there was someone in PennDOT who could continue.  When we did task assignments, sometimes there was advance coordination to check to see what IUP could manage within their schedule.  We wanted the assignments to be realistic and not onerous, a constraint we never applied to our engineering consultants.  When we were holding Byways Conferences, there was also intense coordination on the program, on logistics.  When the PHAST program was initiated, we reserved internships for IUP students, and we made sure that IUP students were considered for other internships in Harrisburg.  We cowrote press releases when good things happened and made sure to give IUP as much credit on any success as we could manage.

Partnerships require adaptation.  Over time, the partnership has evolved and should continue to do so.  The types of ventures we undertook changed over time as our mutual needs and abilities changed.  Our first MOU was for staff, plus some extras. Without the need for staff, the MOU evolved into other mutually beneficial initiatives, such as the legacy archaeological collection project.  As geomorphology became are more important tool in our project studies, we managed to work that into the MOUs.  Thankfully, we had the time to process changing circumstances and make necessary adjustments.

Timing and opportunity matters.  Guy Raz has a podcast on public radio called “How I Built This, with various entrepreneurs being interviewed on how they built their businesses.  One of the best questions comes at the end, when Guy Raz asks each one how much of their success was based on skill and work and how much on luck. The answers are fascinating.  I think the same question can be asked here.  

I know for a fact that my staff and I and Bev Chiarulli, Phil Neusius, and folks at the Anthropology Department worked very hard over the years to build this partnership and to sustain it.  But I also know that a lot of people in PennDOT and in other cultural resources units also work equally hard or harder.  And I consider myself a good salesman, but there are also many who communicate as well or better.  Hard work alone doesn’t result in a partnership.  You could say that luck also played a part, but what I would call luck is having the door open at times.  When I came to PennDOT, my supervisors and managers, including Wayne Kober and Dan Accurti, were receptive to change and new ideas.  It was most visible with the EMS re-engineering, where management, especially M.G. Patel, the Chief Engineer, actually sought out useful change.  Our timing was excellent, as we had just executed the new programmatic agreement and were looking for ways to implement it.  

You don’t get a chance to pick your managers or the timing of these agency-wide initiatives, but you also have to recognize when the opportunity exists and that the door is open.  As stated earlier, working in government means that there is always a Department-wide initiative to increase productivity.  Some are serious, but most are flavor-of-the month management speak. In an advanced seminar, we could teach you tools on how to tell the difference, but let it suffice that it is critical to know the difference before investing the work that would be required to actually produce a partnership.

Lefty Gomez once said, “I’d rather be lucky than good.” He also said his success was due to clean living and a fast outfield.  So to my fast outfield of Kula, Russell, and Baker, I close with a sincere thank you.

The PennDOT and IUP Partnership: A Personal History -II

Part II – Business Process Re-Engineering and the District-Based Teams

By the spring of 1997, some of the weaknesses of the BEQ-based QP teams were beginning to show.  As noted above, there was difficulty in scheduling for scoping field views. The lack of communication with Project Managers and Environmental Managers limited trust.  The QPs ability to have input into the creation of design scopes of work was also constrained, as was the review of consultants doing the work prior to their being selected for a consulting contract.  Furthermore, the Adverse Interest Act put constraints on the types of projects our consultants could oversee.  By contrast Jamie McIntyre could cut through those problems and work much more closely with the Environmental Unit and Project Managers.  She was in the District, and as a creature of the District, was de facto part of the team.  The archaeology portion of Section 106 worked better in District 4-0 than elsewhere.

That spring, the Department rolled out a large initiative under the initials EMS (Engineering Management System), which suggested that each work unit re-engineer itself to improve productivity and to try to work the golden triangle of Faster, Betters, and Cheaper.  Our kick-off meeting was held April 11, 1997. The goals of our group were to:

  • Save the Districts time for smaller projects
  • Better value for our money
  • Take the guess work out
  • Preserve PA historic resources
  • Streamline the process
  • Cut design time researching historic resources
  • Improve predictability

Our cultural resources team had some advantages coming into this effort, as we had a newly minted PA, and established a team-based approach to Section 106, pairing above-ground specialists with below-ground specialists.  The re-engineering effort became a lab for additional ideas and suggested process improvements.

Although the final EMS recommendations were far-ranging and ambitious, the most important recommendation was to solidify staffing for the QPs.  Five options were developed, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

Hire Qualified Professionals– In this scenario, all needed QPs would be hired by PennDOT.  This was clearly the cheapest option from a salary perspective. All QPs could perform all needed duties, including preparing and review proposals, and had the highest potential for the long-term.  The disadvantages were that the existing civil service classifications were not a good fit (see museum curators, above), the salary range might not attract the best candidates, and most importantly, it would require shifting complement within PennDOT.  Shifting complement is a kind restatement of stealing vacancies from other units. It doesn’t make you popular, either.

Use consultants– We had been using consultants and in this option, we would continue to do so, filling all needed positions.  We would be able to specify the skill levels we needed, and presumably we could get them on task faster. Also, as our needs changed, we could flexibly add or subtract consultants.  On the downside, it was the most expensive option (overhead and profit could multiply salaries by 2.5x), did not address the issue with the Adverse Interest Act, and consultants could not perform all of the needed duties, such as reviewing contract proposals.  In addition, there was a concern that consultants generally like to please their clients (us) and might make findings that unduly favor PennDOT, rather than making cold objective decisions.

Hire PHMC staff– In this option, we would enter into an interagency agreement with the SHPO to have them hire and dedicate staff to PennDOT projects.  Some states already used this model.  The SHPO could use their own PHMC classifications; it would not burden PennDOT complement; and, there was the potential for an instant sign-off from the field.  Unfortunately, this option would not address a key Programmatic Agreement goal of increasing delegation of responsibility to the Department, instead regressing back to the old methods of pressing the SHPO for sign-off.

Hire University CRM Staff– Several DOTs had already established partnerships with universities, although in each case it was to provide field archaeological studies.  Using a university in a slightly different way to provide QPs was conceivable, although we were more likely to find archaeologists than architectural historians on staff. This also had the potential to be a long-standing arrangement with the further advantage that being independent of both PennDOT and the SHPO, QPs could make independent judgments.  The question was whether there were any universities in Pennsylvania that would be in a position to enter into such an arrangement.

Retrain PennDOT Staff– This final option would have existing PennDOT staff trained as QPs.  While it would support the central EMS concept of doing our own work, and did not require additional complement, it would have required those individuals to undertake a 3-5 year program of education and training to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards for professional archaeologist and architectural historian that the PA called for.  Furthermore, it was suspected if we did retrain and delegate staff (probably not engineers) as QPs, they would most likely leave the Department for better paying jobs elsewhere, plying their newly acquired specialies.

At a July 23, 1997 presentation of our EMS Re-engineering to upper management at PennDOT, we received approval to move forward with the option to hire university CRM Staff.

Next:Part III – And Away We Go: The First IUP Contract (1999-2002)

The PennDOT and IUP Partnership: A Personal History – In Six Parts

Part I

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the cultural resources partnership between the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP).  The partnership has served both agencies and over the years have provided staffing to PennDOT, helped move legacy archaeological collections toward curation, hosted conferences, launched and sustained a publication series, trained a generation of students in cultural resources management, and otherwise served as an exemplar to all state agencies in how they can play well together for mutual benefit.  This is that story, as I see it.  Please join me over the next several weeks.

The Bad Old Days

In 1993, I joined PennDOT after a brief career managing the archaeology program at the Maryland State Highway Administration.  I joined a small cultural resources unit in the newly formed Bureau of Environmental Quality, my coworkers being Deborah Suciu Smith, Chris Kula, and Dick Weeden.  The Bureau was led by Wayne Kober, who had formed it only a few years earlier.  In 1993, District 4-0 (based out of Dunmore, near Wilkes-Barre) also hired an archaeologist, Jamie McIntyre.  Chris, Jamie, and I were hired as Museum Curators, Archaeologist II, under the State Civil Service Classification.  In my 26 years at PennDOT, I never did see a PennDOT museum, nor did I every curate any collection other than pencils and compact discs. Go figure.  For a brief period, from 1993 until June, 1994, we worked in the old Transportation and Safety Building on the site where the current Keystone Building resides.  After the 1994 fire, we were temporarily housed then returned to the T&S building, until it was found unfit for habitation. We then operated out of a converted parking garage at Forum Place for about 4 years until in 2000 we moved into the Keystone facility.

When I joined BEQ, the National Historic Preservation Act was 27 years old and PennDOT had been conducting archaeological studies for about half as long.  The Bureau for Historic Preservation, i.e., the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), was housed in the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and was led by Brenda Barrett.  We were aware of the Federal Highway Administration, but in those days, FHWA was relatively disengaged with the day to day activities of the environmental unit.  Our day to day activities were of one of two flavors.  For smaller projects, PennDOT submitted a Preliminary Cultural Resource Review Form (PCRRF) to the SHPO for their sign-off.  Usually, the PCRRF was stapled to a 10 to 30-page report describing the project and potential non-effects the project would have on historic resources.  Our job was to conduct a quality control check on the package and shepherd it across the plaza to the State Museum, in which the SHPO offices were housed.  The second task we had was to manage report reviews of historic resource studies.  PennDOT project managers whose projects were likely to affect historic resources had the design consultant and their subconsultants prepare any necessary studies, i.e., historic resource surveys, criteria of effect reports, Phase I and II archaeological surveys, etc.  As these studies came into BEQ, they were assigned to one of a pool of management consultants who actually reviewed the reports and determined whether they were sufficient to hand off to the SHPO for their approval and sign-off.  Our job was to manage the management consultants and act as intermediaries between the management consultants and the engineers in the Highway Quality Assurance Division, who would draft and send the cover letters to the SHPO.  Given the pace of activities and the rate at which reports came into BEQ, it was a rare event when one of us would actually read the reports being sent over.  Most of the time we conducted the quality control on the comments prepared by the management consultants.  Even as I remember this process and write about it here, I must assure the reader that what I have presented was an oversimplification of the process, having left several intermediate steps out.

By mutual agreement between BEQ and SHPO, the deadline for approval or comment on the submitted reports was 60 days, so a third task we had was to track review times religiously.  PCRRFs was an expedited process, whereby a submission would return a response in 10 days.  On average, the review times were around or just under 60 days, but as much as a third of the reports were reviewed in more than 60 days.  Large reports such as data recovery reports might take up to 6 months for a review, although that generally wasn’t a problem as we had usually received a conditional letter of approval based on an executive summary and a field visit, so the project could proceed into final design.  This being before 1999, archaeological impacts were treated as not adverse if there was a data recovery, so no agreement documents were required to finish NEPA and get to final design.  PCRRFs were usually returned in 10 days; however, a more than insignificant proportion of them required resubmission due to incomplete information, so the Section 106 review for even minor projects could take several months.

In some ways, tracking reports was simple.  It came into BEQ and was stamped in with a  date.  When it was taken over to SHPO, it was stamped in with a  date.  And when it was returned to BEQ with approval or comment, it was stamped with a date. Each document was tracked on a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet and we had a management consultant whose only responsibility was to track the coming and going of reports.  The only problems with the system as designed was that reports were lost being mailed or shipped from the District offices to BEQ, reports were lost at SHPO, and there were frequent arguments over reports that were stamped in on a Friday afternoon or a day before a holiday.  This being the land of engineers, every day was counted and tracked.

Jamie was hired by the Engineering District and did not report to BEQ.  Her duties were largely archaeological, conducting studies and managing the archaeological contracts carried out under the Prime consultants for various PennDOT projects.  Although we coordinated on issues and policy, she and the District operated largely independently from Central Office, which was the general rule in PennDOT.  PennDOT was and remains a largely decentralized organization.

Pivoting

While our routine in the early 1990’s more resembled paper pushers than archaeologists or cultural resources managers, two initiatives were afoot that would change that.  First was the development in Pennsylvania for a Programmatic Agreement (PA) to cover Section 106 activities for FHWA/PennDOT.  Program-wide programmatic agreements had become popular in the late 1980’s as a tool to gain efficiencies on coordination with the SHPO and to provide predictability to agency programs.  At the time the gold standard was the Vermont VTRANS Programmatic Agreement that delegated a lot of responsibility to professionals working for the Vermont Agency of Transportation.  This was a far-ranging agreement that carried a lot of weight and was the envy of the transportation profession.  Every DOT wanted one, but the problem was that Vermont was and is considered a “toy state” with a minuscule program and a very strong preservation ethic amongst it citizens.  PennDOT was the 5th largest transportation program in the country, and it was unclear whether a Vermont-flavored PA could be executed here.

Apparently, it could.  On December 11, 1996 a statewide programmatic agreement covering “minor” transportation projects was executed between FHWA, PennDOT, and the SHPO.  It was limited insofar as it did not cover projects with adverse effects and was limited to categorical exclusion level projects under NEPA.  Still, it represented a leap forward and covered a large share of the program.  The key features in this PA were:

  1. It established a class of activities that could be excluded from further Section 106 consultation by the nature of the activity.  They were small enough to be exempted.
  2. It created a class of PennDOT staff who could make exemptions under the PA, but who weren’t historic preservation specialists.  The class required training and oversight, but were delegated to make exemptions, as District Designees.
  3. It put the responsibility for making findings of eligibility and effect squarely back on to the agency, with PennDOT acting as surrogate for FHWA.  This is what the law intended and now it was going to be the responsibility of PennDOT to own the program and not shrug its shoulders, hand the decision to the SHPO, and then get angry.
  4. Finally, it created a class of historic preservation professional that were delegated to make findings of eligibility and effect on behalf of PennDOT and FHWA.  These Qualified Professionals (QP’s, or kewpies, as sometimes noted) were not SHPO staff, but PennDOT staff and its consultants.

Concurrent with the development of the PA (which actually took three years between proposal and execution) was the evolution of thinking regarding how and where these QPs would be used once a PA was in place.  Ultimately, the line of thinking resulted in a district-based team concept, with an archaeologist and architectural historian being placed in neighboring Engineering Districts and working together as a team closely with the design team and the environmental unit in the District. 

Getting from status quo to District-based teams was not a straight line by any means, but I would like to try to recreate path we followed.  As noted above, a central premise of the PA was that PennDOT would be providing qualified professionals to implement the Agreement, making findings of eligibility and effect.  First question: should these QPs be Department hires, consultants, or something else?  Second question: where should they be based?  Third question: to whom should they report?

As the PA was moving forward and toward signature and execution, PennDOT had to make decisions on how to implement, i.e., staff the Agreement.  In 1996, available Department staff included myself, Chris Kula, and Jamie McIntyre.  We were used to working with management consultants for the previous three years and knew their capabilities, and there was no way that the three of us could cover the Department, not including the fact that none of us were architectural historians.  As a matter of practicality, we would be relying heavily on consultants to augment Department staff.

The initial iteration on implementation paired an archaeologist and an architectural historian with each District.  Archeologists Jamie McIntyre, Chris Kula, Barb (Gudel) Shaffer, and Rod Brown were matched up with Jerry Clouse and Sue Peters on the above-ground side. Our management consultants were tasked with finding a third architectural historian, but through 1996, had been unable to do so.  By November 1996, three teams had been established to cover 11 engineering Districts, with an expectation that the third architectural historian would be provided by our management consultants.  At this point, other than Jamie McIntyre working out of District 4-0, there was no expectation that any of the teams would be District-based, as all of the QPs other than Jamie were coming out of Harrisburg.  Later on, District 6-0 (King of Prussia, near Philadelphia) hired Catherine Spohn in 1997 to serve as their archaeologist for projects in District 6-0.  In 1998, BEQ hired David Anthony to be based in Pittsburgh and be a staff architectural historian that would service the western Engineering Districts.  However, in 1996 and 1997, the PA was implemented largely with Harrisburg staff. 

Operationally, it wasn’t elegant.  PennDOT was a decentralized agency, with environmental review, design, and project delivery coming from each Engineering District.  Although BEQ was its own Bureau and reported directly to the Chief Engineer, each Engineering District was autonomous and also reported to the Chief Engineer, so that BEQ had no direct authority over the Environmental Managers or Project Managers in any District.  Our teams did review technical reports produced by consultants and submitted by the Districts to Central Office for coordination with the SHPO.  So at the beginning, the teams were intermediary between the project managers and the SHPO.  One implicit premise of the PA was that cultural resources expertise would be provided at the start of the project, which was the scoping field view.  To the degree possible, the teams travelled to each Engineering District to participate in these scoping field views and to provide input on what types of studies were needed going forward in design.  Initially this did not work well, as Project Managers were accustomed to establishing the scopes of work and handing the cultural resources off to the prime or sub consultant for completion.  More often than not, that meant cultural resources consultants were handed a soup-to-nuts list of studies to complete, with the assumption that a scattershot approach would not bog down the process.  It also meant that the cultural resources teams often were handed completed reports for work that in their opinions were not needed.  This created more than a little conflict.

As a consequence of the creation of the cultural resources teams, gradually Environmental Managers and Project Managers began to rely on their expertise, particularly when they were able to expedite the project by getting to an effect finding more quickly.  Gradually, the quality of reports submitted to the SHPO for comment improved as well, reducing the number of resubmissions due to extensive comments.  Clearly, BEQ professional staff were beginning to gain hold of the process and to actually fulfill the terms of the PA, moving from paper pushers to adding value.  Given that most of the QPs were based in BEQ and worked closely together, it was also possible to effect training and changes in policy or procedure very quickly, which is a distinct advantage of having a closely working unit.  And in addition to the QPs, the ability for trained District Designees to exempt projects based on the types of activities, also reduced the overall workload.  Those Stipulation C exemptions (made under the PA) largely took over the role that PCRRFs had accomplished only a year before, but with much less paperwork and much more accuracy.

Next: Part II – Business Process Re-Engineering and the District-Based Teams

Moving PennDOT Forward

Rummaging through my files as I was researching a panel presentation on university partnerships, I stumbled across this missive from the last century, 1997 to be exact. Although it is an artifact from the time, I did find it interesting that some of the concepts presented are still relevant today, in particular the need to put creative mitigation under an overall strategic plan.  And although it has PennDOT firmly in the cross-hairs, I think it can apply to any agency that has Section 106 responsibilities. In that spirit, I am offering it for your amusement.  

Archaeology and Historic Resources – Creative Mitigation and Integrated Program Management

Under NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Department of Transportation must ensure that its Federal-Aid projects consider their effects on historic sites and properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.  Similar requirements are found under the counterpart State History Code and Act 120. In the 30 years that these laws have been in effect, PennDOT has aggressively fulfilled its responsibilities and can take credit for much of what is known archaeologically in Pennsylvania, as well as numerous examples of sympathetic design with the historic built environment.

The Challenge Ahead

Despite a strong effort in compliance – reflected in the approximately 250 cultural resource studies conducted each year, dozens of archaeological and historical mitigation efforts, and expenditures of $6-12 million a year – there are some notable deficiencies.  Most archaeological sites are eligible for the National Register for the important information they contain, yet most archaeological mitigation projects, i.e. data recovery excavations, do not yield knowledge and understanding commensurate with the efforts made to gain that information. Second, valuable information that is gleaned from individual sites and individual projects is not being fully communicated to either the technical community or to the public at large. Third, a site-specific or project-specific focus on archaeological or historical resources generally fails to support a regional perspective or context, so that all of the history becomes local and does not inform the broader pattern.  Fourth, avoidance and mitigation have substituted for preservation, with the frequent result that extraordinary measures to avoid harm to important historic properties are negated by later non-PennDOT development activities.

The problems enumerated above are not PennDOT’s alone, but are reflective of National trends and concerns.  To a greater or lesser degree, all Federal agencies and their State Counterparts are being faced with the same challenges.  Most of these agencies have evolved responses to these challenges in the same incremental, methodical, and unreflective way.  Environmental compliance is the cost of doing business, in our case maintaining and improving the transportation system.  All costs above the minimum are excessive.  Because the project is the irreducible unit of measure and the only fiscal unit, cultural resource activities must be confined to the project.  Finally, all non-construction costs – design and environmental studies – are a potential embarrassment to be hidden from nosy legislators and constituents.

The Cultural Resource Management (CRM) field has not escaped criticism either. The 25 year-old promise of an enlightened public-private partnership to enrich our cultural heritage has gone unfulfilled.  Instead, the entire arena of Cultural Resources has become one of fragmented and competing interests: academic researchers, preservationists, CRM firms, Native American Groups, local historical societies, State Historic Preservation Offices, the Agency, and the Agency’s own technical specialists and managers.  Academic archaeologists still ignore the reality that CRM funds virtually all archaeological work in the United States, instead training their students to become university professors for a shrinking teaching job market.  For-profit CRM firms complete synthetic archaeological or historical research as a non-profit activity, if at all, since compliance not research is the product paid for by clients.   Agency and SHPO staffs are usually locked into a zero-sum game of how much fieldwork is enough.   In this mix, the general public has been left out to sit on the sidelines, and, even if aware of the ensuing debates, left to ponder the relevance and value of CRM to society.

Climbing Out of the Box

PennDOT has an unprecedented opportunity to reflect on and rethink the status of CRM as it is currently implemented.  The upcoming re-engineering of cultural resources in May will necessarily lead to re-evaluations of processes, both internal and external. Efficiencies most certainly will be found, both in time saved and costs.  However, if the battle cry is “Better, faster, cheaper!” then there is a risk that only two parts will be addressed, unless there is a clear effort to make CRM betterwithin the Department.  In this context, better is not merely the outcome of faster and cheaper. “Better” can and must be an effort to address all of the above-listed  deficiencies.  Ironically, a single-minded focus just on a better CRM within PennDOT may be the surest and quickest path to a more cost effective program.

The Department must shift its thinking in two ways to accomplishing this re-engineering successfully.  First, PennDOT must embrace a new ethic of preservation, increased historical knowledge, and outreach, and abandon its current ethic of compliance, avoidance, and mitigation.  Second, PennDOT must embrace a program-wide perspective and abandon its project-by-project myopia.  The second shift in thinking is the tool to accomplish the first.

Deming astutely observed that you cannot improve what you do not measure.  In the current climate, PennDOT does measure compliance, avoidance, and mitigation, and success in a project is judged by how well these three are done.  However, these are short-sighted goals that are purely process focused.  Section 106 is a process, but to focus only on the process is to box ourselves into narrow thinking and miss the larger points.   We comply and consult.  We redesign to avoid historically important sites, only to lose these sites to fast-food restaurants and housing projects.  We mitigate by recordation, but the bridge is taken down and no one other than the preparer, the reviewer, and the SHPO will ever read the report or use the information.  We conduct a data recovery excavation, analyze the artifacts, write up the report, but the site is destroyed and few people other than a handful of experts understands what was learned or why.

It is time to start measuring what is important, instead of measuring process. Can we preserve historic resources, so that they will be there for our children and our children’s children to enjoy? Can our bottom line be increased understanding of our past, measurable as scientific knowledge?  And can we communicate this newly gained understanding, both to the research community and to the public at large, measured in heightened public awareness and interest in our past?  As a public agency, funded with public monies, dare we do otherwise?

Creative Mitigation: The Magic Bullet

In the current climate of thought, these goals are difficult if not impossible to reach.  PennDOT’s activities are inherently destructive and only rarely offer an opportunity for actual preservation within a particular project.  And, as described above, only the largest EISs offer any opportunity to broaden interpretation, and provide something back for the community, as a brochure, poster, or lecture.  However, if we can liberate our thinking from a project-specific basis to a program perspective, then much more is possible.   If mitigation need not be directly linked to the project impacts, then indeed it would be possible to incorporate off-site preservation actions into a project.  A mitigation to one historic property being destroyed might be the purchase of an easement on another that could be preserved.  A bridge removal on one location might be mitigated by rehabilitation of second bridge on a different location.  If we can break out of the box of project action/project mitigation, and can be flexible and creative in our interpretation of mitigation, then we can reach the goals of preservation, increased knowledge, and public outreach.

Can creative mitigation be done?  Specifically, is it permissible under Section 106 and will it be supported by the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, both of whom would need to sanction this approach?  In the current National dialogue, there is every indication that they would.  In Pennsylvania, the US Army Corps of Engineers recently signed a Memorandum of Agreement with both the SHPO and the Advisory Council to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites on a Wyoming Valley Flood Control project by contributing to a Geographic Information System Database initiative.  The Advisory Council recently executed an Agreement with a Federal Agency that mitigated impacts by funding university student scholarships.  The door is clearly open for creative approaches to mitigation.

Integrated Program Management

Once we accept the premise of a creative and possibly off-site mitigation strategy, then CRM within PennDOT can no longer be managed at the project level. It must be managed at a program level.  This is simultaneously liberating and challenging.  It is liberating because the goal now is to find the mitigation appropriate to the effect, whether it be on-site, in-kind elsewhere, or something entirely creative and new.  It is challenging because without the constraint of project location on each mitigation activity, mitigation themes and locations can get redundant, duplicated, or established without consideration of their cumulative positive effects.  If creative mitigations are integrated and managed as a program, addressing the new ethics of preservation, knowledge, and outreach as the driving goals of the program, then the challenge can be met.

Integrated Program Management(IPM) is the key to successfully folding mitigation activities into CRM in an efficient manner.  Potential adverse effects to historic properties would be mitigated by actions falling under one or more of the goals of preservation, knowledge, or outreach.  In consultation with the SHPO, FHWA, and others, and appropriate strategy could be developed and implemented.  Traditional mitigation actions could be considered and may be appropriate; however, the options can be greatly expanded.  Instead of a data recovery excavation on a site that is only being partially impacted, perhaps the appropriate mitigation would be a synthesis and publication on the prehistory of the region.  An eligible bridge that is closed and structurally unsound might be replaced to AASHTO standards, but another bridge of the same type on the State system might be rehabilitated instead.  In lieu of routine consultation and evaluation of 3R and 4R projects in a District, the Department might fund a middle school teaching module on the history of transportation of the area.  This flexible approach does not preclude standard treatments, developed through a series of Programmatic Agreements. 

IPM offers three extremely valuable additional benefits.  Small mitigations can be grouped and leveraged to a greater benefit, be it for preservation, knowledge, or outreach.  IPM can be used to fill gaps.  Finally, and possibly of greatest interest to any re-engineering, IPM can be used to fuel the kind of applied research that can result in more efficient identification and evaluation efforts.  This last point was not lost on the Corps of Engineers in their Wyoming Valley mitigation commitment, insofar as they fully expect to reap the benefits of the GIS in years to come when determining the need for future surveys in their jurisdictional area.

Although IPM would be the management tool for PennDOT, it would be guided by a preservation plan.  Such a plan would define preservation, increased knowledge, and outreach goals, and set guidelines and measurement for them.  It might become a biennial planning document that would set forth more specific objectives that IPM would implement.   The statutory authority for a Federal Agency to establish such a plan is clearly set forth in Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act; however, few agencies other than the National Park Service and the US Army have utilized its full provisions.

Developing the Public and University Partners

In order for PennDOT to fully embrace a Creative Mitigation IPM Program, the Department must extend its partnerships beyond the traditional SHPO and FHWA ring. Pennsylvania’s Universities are uniquely positioned to synthesize the history and prehistory of the State, and to undertake the kinds of special analyses that bring greater understanding. The university is also the appropriate training ground for cultural resource professionals.  It may be possible to sustain existing programs or kick-start new programs at institutions that can break away from ivory tower thinking.  Were several universities to partner with PennDOT, they could expect a steady stream of data, student support (as internships or scholarships), and funding for applied research.  For public universities, an association with a State Agency makes these institutions relevant to the larger public, which can be translated into public support. In return, PennDOT could expect this data to be digested into historical knowledge at low cost, as well as a ready laboratory for methodological and technical experimentation.

The other partnership is with the public, both in the historical and preservation community and with the public at large.  PennDOT is not in the public history business, but can find partners who are.  The syntheses that are developed from CRM studies can and must be translated into plain English and presented to a public that is truly eager for its heritage. This outreach can take many forms, as readable summaries, exhibits, lectures, symposia, re-enactments, site reconstructions, Internet Web sites, radio and television programs, books, magazines, or CD ROM.  Preservation activities that include purchase of historic properties or easements will need to be assisted by local historical groups who have the infrastructure to manage, maintain, and interpret these properties.  In return, PennDOT can look beyond the legal and regulatory requirements of CRM, and point with pride to the intrinsic value of its activities.

Solar Panels: Our Story

December 2018

Mr. and Ms. Green Jeans

As a background to this story, I’d like to share our energy and consumption habits.  We have tried over the years to hold and maintain a green energy ethic, including conservation, re-use, and recycling.  We converted our old boiler from fuel oil to the highest efficiency natural gas boiler we could find ten years ago.  Our hot water is on demand.  When we buy a fridge, or dishwasher, or washing machine, we always look for the most energy efficient.  We’ve swapped out light bulbs for LED’s or CFL’s wherever possible.  We garden and we compost.  We cook from scratch a lot and stay away from pre-packaged foods, when we can.  We take our bags when we go grocery shopping, and refuse plastic bags whenever possible. We save and re-use when we can’t. We bundle our newspaper and fill the recycling bin.  We bought our house big enough to raise our family, but no bigger.  When I was working, I either bicycled to work or took the bus, keeping my driving in to less than a dozen times a year.  Our strategy is to buy quality new and then wear it out over a longer period of time before replacing.  If it can be repaired, we generally will fix it before replacing it.  (Other than books) we have shied away from owning things, especially now that the kids are out of the house.  

And in raising a family and living our lives, we have made knowing compromises with the environment.  The natural gas that warms our house and cooks our food is still a fossil fuel, and while cleaner than coal or fuel oil, is not ideal.  We have and use central air conditioning, increasingly so in recent years.  Either it has been warmer or we are older, or both, and no we are not getting rid of it. We still have two cars, and although one is a Prius, the other car is an small land yacht that gets 18 mpg (we try not to drive that one when we can).  I have a gas-powered lawnmower. We eat meat.   We fly across country to visit family, our contrails scratching across the sky.

Why Solar Now?

I would like to say that our decision to install solar photovoltaic panels came from a galvanizing moment, but in fact resulted from the convergence of a several seemingly non-related events.  In no order of importance, the first was probably my retirement from State Service.  For those of you who haven’t retired from the Commonwealth, there is a nice little cherry on top besides getting the sought-after pension.  If you have been reasonably healthy and have worked a reasonable number of years, you accumulate a healthy reserve of sick leave. At retirement, the Commonwealth will buy it from you at a set formula, which could result in your getting the equivalent of up to a dozen extra paychecks, all at once (closer to 7 in my case).  If you have any unused annual leave, that is thrown in on top.  So even after taxes, you find yourself looking at a last pay statement that could indulge most of your most modest fantasies.

The second event was our trip to Scotland, a week after I retired.  Now, almost nothing from the trip is relevant to this story.  It was a wonderful and exciting journey through the Highlands, worthy in its own right.  However, we did notice a proliferation of large wind mills and wind farms throughout the Highlands, as well as more than an occasional solar panel.  This in a country more noted for foggy moors than tropical sun.  It turns out that Scotland, the entire country, has set a goal of 100% renewables for electric energy by 2020, and 11% of all heat demand by the same year. Renewables in Scotland include wind (onshore and offshore), hydro, wave, tidal, biomass, solar, and geothermal.  Being Scots, yes, they are on target to meet those goals.  Now Scotland has a wee more than 5 million people, with 20% in rural areas, so it is not that large a country.  The United States has 22 states with more people than Scotland.  States close to Scotland in population include: Alabama, South Carolina, Minnesota, Colorado, and Wisconsin.  So you could visualize the equivalent of Scotland in several places in the US.  But in no state are renewable targets like Scotland’s being set and made.  The closest is Hawaii, with a target of 100% renewable but by 2045.  Scotland is a western, industrialized country. Hell, they invented industrialization. We are a western, industrialized country.  We’ve even acquired a lot of Scots through immigration.  But outside of a few pockets in California, Arizona, Texas, and the Southwest, there is not this level of commitment to renewables. Scotland is making it work, and they are not idiots, and (as Scots would have it) they are making it pay off.

The third event was the release of several world climate reports this Fall, beginning with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, released October 8th, followed by the Fourth National Climate Assessment (November 23rd), and the NOAA Report Card on the Arctic (December 3rd).  The tie between human-induced emissions of COinto the atmosphere and accelerating climate change was presented at Toronto 30 years ago with a call for world action.  Collectively, these 2018 reports reaffirm the science behind climate change and demonstrate that the original projections for the world heating up were in fact too conservative and that the rate of change is faster than we thought.  The bottom line is that unless we as a world society make substantial changes in the emissions of CO2over the next 12 years– emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels – our children will face a substantially hotter planet and everything that comes with it.  The call for action is now.

There was one other reason to fan the urgency for action. Currently, the Federal Government gives a 30% tax credit for installation of solar panels.  If you have an annual Federal tax bill, this is real money. The credits were due to expire in 2016, but were extended through legislation.  The December 2015 tax bill extended the credits through 2021, but the full 30% credit is only good through 2019.  As we have seen with this Federal Administration, there is an open hostility toward renewables, shared by many republicans in Congress.  Prior to the November 2018 election, there was a palpable chance that the credits could go away entirely in early 2019.  The clear message was that it was the time to act.

The elements for the decision to install solar PV panels were in place:  a predilection toward green energy, an urgency, a vision of someone actually doing this (the Scots), and enough funds to pay for it.  If there was anything resembling a triggering event, it was a domestic disagreement over the second car, a a big lumbering beast that gets terrible fuel economy (18 mpg). Nicknamed “the Couch” for its ride, both of us hate the car and hate driving it.  The saving graces were that it is paid for, mechanically sound, and is only used as a backup vehicle.  Both of us wanted to replace it, but we could not agree with what.  Linda wanted another Prius, which we both like and appreciate.  I wanted either to get rid of the second car entirely and go down to one car (probably not practical at our point in our lives), or to get an electric car like a Bolt or Leaf and make the electric our primary local car, saving the Prius for trips. Because we could not come to an agreement, and status quo could work, we dropped the idea for a change in cars. Instead, we took part of the payout to reduce the mortgage on the house and started our research into solar PV (photovoltaic) panels.

The Green Payoff

Solar PV systems can work financially, even in a place like Central Pennsylvania (see my post on Solar Economics).  However, to be clear, economics was not the primary driver for our decision.  We made our decision more for other reasons, but didn’t want to take a bath on the costs.

The recent news on greenhouse gases, especially CO2, is uniformly scary.  If we do not act now as a society, we (by we, I mean our children and our grandchildren) face a greatly warmed and destabilized planet.  Yesterday, I heard a vivid analogy.  Our house is on fire and our children and grandchildren are in the attic. How do we get them out?  I’m not saying that installing solar panels will save the planet, or cure cancer, or whatever. But I think this it is a meaningful act.  Here is what we are facing.  We are dumping carbon, in the form of CO2, into the environment at unprecedented rates. In order to keep world temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degree centigrade (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels, we need to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (in 12 years) and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. This is what the Paris Climate Accords called for.  Even with only a 1.5 degree increase, we would face stronger storms, more erratic weather, dangerous heat waves, rising seas, and largescale disruption to infrastructure and migration patterns.  Past 1.5 degrees, we will see hotter summers, larger and more severe storms, longer droughts in areas, rising sea levels and an acceleration in rising sea levels, decrease in agricultural productivity, and a destabilized environment in places where there is currently political and economic unrest. Just look at Syria, for example.

Is our conversion to solar going to halt all this? Nope.  In the United States alone, in 2017, the electric power sector put 1,744 million metric tons of CO2 into the environment.  The current population of the US is 325 million residents, so each man, woman, and child is responsible for 5.37 metric tons of CO2each year, just from electric production.  Our modest 7,500 kWh of annual electric generation saves somewhere between 3.1 and 7.3 metric tons of CO2each year, about what one person would generate based on a national average.  Removing this CO2from the environment reduces US  greenhouse gas emissions from electric generation by 0.000000308 percent.  Whoopee!

Still, each of us has a responsibility to be good citizens, not just of the United States, but of the world.  And to quote Margaret Mead:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

We want our action to be a call for action.  Conveniently we are just across from the New Cumberland Library.  Maybe seeing solar panels by patrons of the library will start a conversation.  We are trying to start a conversation by merely posting this blog.  We want everyone to go solar, as long as they can manage it.  Ask us how.  We want and need everyone to start thinking about energy conservation and how to reduce each person’s carbon footprint. And we need everyone to press their legislators on ways to support carbon emission reduction through public policy.  Upping renewable targets would be a start.  A carbon tax would be another.  Exempting solar installations from income tax and property taxes would be a good thing.  The Commonwealth should restart and fund the Pennsylvania Sunshine Solar Program, which ended in 2013. 

A rapidly warming planet is no boutique issue. Remember, the attic is on fire and our children and grandchildren are trapped in there.

My Comments on the Proposed NEPA Changes

I submitted comments to the Council on Environmental Quality on February 17, 2020 on the proposed changes to NEPA Regulations. My comments in their entirety are provided below. Needless to say, I wasn’t happy.

The Current NEPA Regulations

The Proposed NEPA Regulations

Comments are due March 10th and if you are inclined to make comments on these proposed regulations, I would strongly encourage you to prepare them as quickly as possible. Please feel free to use anything that strikes your fancy.

The following comments are made with respect to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), Docket Number 2019-0003.  I make these comments as a practitioner in NEPA, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act of 1966 with over 25 years of experience at a State DOT.

NEPA is the singular environmental law in the country with 50 years of application and practice.  All of the other national environmental laws, and in practice many of the state environmental laws, point to NEPA which has acted as the umbrella environmental legislation for actions taken by Federal Agencies.  These proposed regulations weaken NEPA to such a large extent that they can only be seen as an assault on national environmental policy.  The proposed regulations should be withdrawn.

It is unfortunately necessary to remind the CEQ what the actual National Environmental Policy Act states:

Purpose 

Sec. 2 [42 USC § 4321]. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. (my emphasis).

You only need to compare the current Section 1500.1 with the proposed 1500.1 to see how far the proposed regulations diverge from the actual law and its sections.

The opening sentence of the current regulations states:

(a) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is our basic national charter for protection of the environment. 

The proposed regulations opens with:

(a) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a procedural statute intended to ensure Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their actions in the decision-making process. 

The word protect appears in the current regulations 8 times as a verb.  In the proposed regulations, twice.

The shortcomings of the proposed regulations are numerous and fatal, contrary to the words and intent of the Act. Neither do they “advance the original goals of the CEQ regulations to reduce paperwork and delays and to promote better decisions consistent with the national environmental policy set forth in section 101 of NEPA” (sic).  In fact, the proposed regulations equate faster and cheaper with the goals of NEPA, leaving out the Law’s original intent to provide better decisionmaking (Section 102(C)).

My remaining comments are made in order of reference to the proposed regulations and not in order of importance.

1500.3. NEPA Compliance. The entire tone of the proposed regulations is hostile to the public’s role in commenting and treats participating agencies and the public as checkboxes that need to be filled out as quickly as possible.  The tone of the regulations could be summed up in the addition of a new Section 1500.3(c). Actions Regarding NEPA Compliance, which is not in the current regulations.  The section discusses at some length the role and timing of judicial review (upon lawsuit), and the potentials for bonds or other limiting security requirements to be placed on private parties (read the public).

With regard to Remedies under 1500.3(d), it is sometimes true that harm from the failure to comply with NEPA can be remedied by compliance with NEPA’s procedural requirements; however, there are times where harm is irreparable, especially when a project is approved and proceeds under faulty premises.  One only needs to look as far as construction of the Border wall in the Organ Pipes National Monument.  This project which had NEPA waived under the REAL ID law of 2005 has resulted in numerous destroyed and irreplaceable archaeological sites.  This controversial project is currently in the courts.  What can compliance with procedural compliances do to replace these archaeological sites, should this project be declared illegal? They are destroyed and the damage cannot be fixed.

1501.1. NEPA threshold applicability analysis.  This is a new concept that establishes a trigger to determine if NEPA analysis and related activity should be required at all. It creates a “minimal government funding or involvement” threshold, below which project planners would, presumably, not engage in a NEPA review. This is an unnecessary and potentially harmful test. First, under the current regulations, actions undergo a three-part test as to whether they have the potential for significant impacts.  Those that have been defined through a separate process of rulemaking as not having significant environmental impacts are considered. Categorical Exclusions (CE).  Yet, even the CE’s undergo a limited environmental analysis to ensure they fit the exclusion tests.  The point is that all actions are subject to EPA, but not all actions require intensive environmental analysis.  Secondly, NEPA applies to all Federal agencies (Section 102).  A threshold analysis that is premised on an agency lacking authority to consider environmental effects (1501.1(a)(2)) goes against the letter and spirit of the law.  Finally, agencies often follow multiple overlapping laws in environmental compliance.  The role of NEPA is integrating and coordinating other agencies with legal responsibilities.  Parsing out whether NEPA applies or not based on whether there is another relevant law rips the NEPA umbrella apart and creates a confusing patchwork of responsibilities.

What constitutes a major federal action is not defined. The language surround this concept mostly discusses what is not a major federal action, but even these key concepts are not clearly laid out.  There is a misunderstanding within CEQ that major equates to percentage funding.  This would suggest that Federal agencies that only have permitting control should not have oversight over privately funded projects that require permits, such as USACE permits.  Permitting is an important Federal action and falls squarely within the mandates of NEPA.  We can see today the great environmental harm from pipeline construction in places like Pennsylvania, my home state, where Congress in its infinite wisdom saw to severely limit permitting control by the USACE through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and its Halliburton Rule.  These changes to NEPA regulations would have a similar effect but in a much wider arena.

In addition to permitted projects, increasingly public-private-partnerships (P3) are emerging as a major means by which infrastructure is addressed.  P3 sponsors are generally disinterested in following environmental laws and regulations and are only held to account by the federal agency under which they are operating.  But for NEPA and its implementing regulations, P3 projects would wholly disregard environmental considerations.  I saw this firsthand in Pennsylvania with the Rapid Bridge Replacement P3 Project, where the design firms had to be repeatedly reminded of their environmental responsibilities during design and later their mitigation commitments under construction.  Although ultimately, the contractors followed NEPA, it was only because of pressure by FHWA and PennDOT.  This particular project had almost no Federal funds involved and would not have met the test of a major Federal action, even though it involved the replacement of 558 bridges across the state at a cost of nearly $1b.

These concepts also disregard the potential for significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources, when projects fall below this line of federal funding.

1501.2. Apply NEPA early in the process. The current language of “shall” and “possible” should be retained instead of watering it down to “should” and “reasonable.”  This is especially relevant if the goals of CEQ are to reduce the time for preparation of NEPA documents and review.  Although, agencies need the discretion to structure the timing of their NEPA processes to align with their decision-making processes consistent with their statutory authorities, agencies also need to be reminded to begin NEPA early.

1501.4. Categorical exclusions. Section 1501.4(b)(1) is probably incorrect as written.  Extraordinary conditions that could mitigate to avoid significant effects are normally treated as a mitigated FONSI.  You really need to do the analysis to ensure that the mitigation will remove the significant effects. This is not normally within the purview of a categorical exclusion.

1501.8. Cooperating agencies. There are a few positive changes to the proposed regulations, as you should expect in any revision, most notably the explicit elevation of Tribes to cooperating agencies (See 1501.8(a)).  However, even this particular improvement is diminished by not treating Tribes as sovereign entities that require government-to-government relations.  Putting Tribes in with other state and local governments is a common mistake in consultation and violates treaty law.  Finally, the lack of consultation with Tribes in the formulation of this proposed regulations undercuts any positive feelings anyone should have regarding the change.  If it’s good enough to be put into the proposed regulations, why wasn’t it good enough to put into practice during its development.  CEQ, heal thyself!

1501.10. Time limits.  Under Section 1501.10, EIS’s would be completed within 2 years of NOI to ROD. EA’s would be completed within 1 year of decision to start to publication of EA.  It is unclear what formally time dates a decision to start an EA, and the ultimate decision of the EA, either a FONSI or development of an EIS, is unstated.  The 2 years for the EIS is too limiting.  An EIS is being prepared because there are significant environmental impacts.  Treating them like a hoop to jump through disrespects the Law and the role the public has in decisionmaking.  But time limits for an EIS or EA are just one place where the role of public input is diminished.

The proposed regulations repeatedly argues that the timelines for completing environmental reviews can be very lengthy, and the process can be complex and costly. This has not been my experience in over 25 years of NEPA work. In the state DOT where I worked, 97-98% of all projects were categorically excluded.  For the majority of these, the NEPA effort took days, not weeks, and was completed on a one-page form.  However, even in that expedited and programmatic format, necessary environmental issues were considered.  For smaller projects, the single factor in extending the NEPA timeframe was lack of project design preparation on the part of the design engineers – they didn’t know what they wanted to build to a level sufficient to understand the environmental footprint.  For larger projects, the single factor in extending the time to the ROD was fiscal. Projects were put on the shelf mid-way due to lack of funds.  The second factor after funding was the simple fact that these were complex and controversial projects with numerous environmental impacts.  These projects required careful analysis and full public participation, which could be rushed.  We would find that if the public was squeezed out of the process, usually due to deadline pressures, we would see them a bit later in court.  Rushing to meet a project deadline always ensured the project took longer to build than it needed.

1502.7. Page limits. As far as page limits go, the proposed regulations will be completely ineffective.  Yes, the EIS can be limited to 300 pages, but the full document will be as long as ever.  In order to meet time limits, the content will be (poorly) summarized into the body of the EIS, with all of the additional material added as appendices. The proposed time constraints (see above) will only put additional time pressure on the production of the EIS, most likely making it longer, more poorly written, and organizationally ragged.  Secondly, plain writing has been an EIS requirement for some time (1502.8 in the current regulations). Instead of mandating that the statements be written in “plain language,” you would have better luck mandating that any engineering firm that is contracted to produce an EIS be required to hire professional technical writers to produce the text. Yes, most EIS’s are led by large construction engineering firms, the vast majority of which do not value clear writing.  In theory, if you had enough engineers on enough typewriters with enough time, eventually you could produce a readable EIS.  In theory.

1502.13. Purpose and need. The changes to Purpose and Need (1502.13) are misguided and unnecessary.  Ultimately, the Federal agency is the responsible party for compliance with NEPA, not the applicants.  The project need is the basis for establishing the alternatives and what constitute all reasonable alternatives.  The goals of the applicant are not relevant to the analysis, and are frequently subject to local political pressures to build, build, build regardless. The Federal agency’s authority is either there or not there, and not subject to parsing.  I state this as a 25-year employee for an applicant for Federal Funds, at a state DOT.  The FHWA has had the ultimate responsibility for determining what is purpose and need, ultimately to the DOT’s benefit and the public’s.

1502.14. Alternatives including the proposed action. The standard of all reasonable alternatives as noted in the current regulations should be retained.  All reasonable alternatives is a much higher standard for consideration and ensures that analysts consider alternatives that might not otherwise be considered. It is a useful tool and forces the agency to sometimes think creatively and productively.  Again, I put my 25 years of NEPA experience forward as seeing additional alternatives developed when all existing studied alternatives were found wanting.  Sometimes, an agency has to turn over extra rocks to get to a good decision.  The idea of limiting the number of considered alternatives to 3, one of which is usually no-build (not completing the project), is just plain silly.

1502.24. Methodology and scientific accuracy. The proposed regulations would require agencies to “make use of reliable existing data and resources and are not required to undertake new scientific and technical research to inform their analyses.”  This allows agencies to avoid ensuring the professional integrity sometimes needed in environmental analyses, when existing data is missing or deficient.  This is particularly true in archaeology, where actual archaeological resources may be known only by conducting new scientific surveys and studies. The entire knowledge base of archaeology is premised on the fact that very few existing archaeological sites are known prior to intensive investigation of an area.

1508.1 – Definitions

Effects. The removal of the concepts of “direct effects,” “indirect effects,” and “cumulative effects” from the proposed regulations simply violates the language of NEPA, specifically in the purpose of the Law, as well as Policy:

“to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may –

3. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; “ (my emphasis)

Under Section 102, “all agencies of the Federal Government shall – 

(C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on — 

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity,…” (my emphasis)

It appears that the purpose of narrowing the definition of effects is more a nod to the fossil fuel industry than anything else and an attempt to preclude using NEPA to address the current climate crisis, despite the climate crisis being the existential environmental issue of this century. There is no other explanation.

Human Environment. This is an overly narrow definition for Human environment and disregards prehistory in  environmental analysis.  The current definition should be retained. Investigation of the archaeology within a project connects past generations with present and future generations.  Only considering present and future generations in the discussion is to erase our past.

Significantly. The current definition of significantly (1508.27) has been removed and not replaced by any comparable guidance.  Significance is a central concept to NEPA and the triggering requirement for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, i.e. significant environmental impacts.  Not defining significance in regulations that entirely revolve around this concept is irresponsible.  The CEQ has a legislative responsibility under Section 204(4) to:

“develop and recommend to the President national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic, health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation” (my emphasis)

At the very minimum, CEQ is obligated to define significant environmental impacts.

The current regulations appear adequate for our current needs and do not require the severe makeover presented in the proposed regulations.  Indeed, the proposed regulations acknowledge that “over the past 4 decades, CEQ has issued over 30 documents to provide guidance and clarifications to assist Federal agencies to more efficiently and effectively implement NEPA.” 

These proposed regulations are badly informed and threaten the health and well-being of all Americans.  They should be withdrawn.

TRB, Taxonomy, and the Island of Misfit Toys

An open letter to the leadership of the Transportation Research Board

I write as a transportation professional with over 30 years of experience working for state Department of Transportations, both in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  My specialty is in historic preservation and I have a PhD in anthropology with an emphasis in archaeology from The Pennsylvania State University. I have been a friend or member of ADC50 (originally A1F05) during this time and have served on several 25-25 research panels.  In 2001, PennDOT chose to award me a Star of Excellence, which honors the top half of one-percent in the agency.  In 2012, the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer gave me a Visionary in Historic Preservation Award.  I’d like to think I know my business.

The Transportation Research Board has recently undertaken a complete overhaul of TRB’s Committee Structure. The new TRB structure renumbers the ADC50 Committee on Historic and Archaeological Preservation in Transportation (AME60), and moves it from the old Environment and Energy Section (ADC00) to a new Transportation and Society Section (AME00) within a new Sustainability and Resilience Group (AM000).  The Historic and Archaeological Preservation in Transportation Committee still exists, for which I probably should be grateful as many other worthy Committees have been eliminated and/or consolidated.  However, the move into the new Transportation and Society Section and a review of fellow committees within the Section and Group immediately reminded me of a scene early in the movie Animal House.   Faber College freshmen Larry “Pinto” Kroger and Kent “Flounder” Dorfman are seeking to join a fraternity and come across the prestigious Omega Theta Pi house party.  Almost immediately they are sized up and ushered into a “special” room containing all of the potential pledges that are deemed unworthy.  The image of that room, with all its lost souls, says all you need to know about Omega Theta Pi.

Animal House (1978)

The Island of Misfit Toys

The list of Committees within the Transportation and Society Section also says all you need to know about TRB decisionmaking.  Historic and Archaeological Preservation in Transportation (AME60) is buttressed by not one, but two Federal laws – Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and, Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act of 1966. One can make the case that the role of the Committee extends beyond these two laws, especially with regard to Planning and Environmental Linkage (PEL), but by and large the Committee’s work is focused on implementation of these two laws.  

AME60 is possibly the only Committee other than AME30 in the Section with a focus underpinned by Federal legislation.  Surveying the other Committees in the Section, it appears AME60 has truly been moved to the island of misfit toys.  Rightly or wrongly, most engineers will react to what they are legally required to do, not what they morally should consider.  It is the nature of working in the Land of Engineers.  Archaeology and historic preservation have a pair of 50-year old laws underpinning our work, along with supporting Federal Regulations.  If I had a nickel for every time I had to tell an engineer, “because it’s the law,” I would be writing this letter from my personal island in the Bahamas.  On these grounds alone, AME60 is misplaced.

Rudolph and the Island of Misfit Toys (2001)

Going through each Committee within the Section:

  • Equity in Transportation (AME10)  is the old ADD50, the Committee on Environmental Justice.  From their web site, the Committee on Environmental Justice identified, advanced and published research to expand understanding of the effects and implications of transportation policies, procedures and actions on minority and low-income populations (EJ populations), and sought to improve evaluation tools and methodologies.  Environmental Justice is supported by a 1994 Executive Order (12898), but no specific legislation.  In 2017 and 2019, Congress tried unsuccessfully put into effect laws to support Environmental Justice.  And we all know how tenuous Executive Orders are at this time.
  • Women’s Issues in Transportation (AME20) is the old ABE70.  From their web site, the people who proposed and supported the Women’s Issues in Transportation group recognized the need to consider gender as an important factor in the way people travel. Is there underpinning legislation to support this worthy mission?  Or to put it bluntly, is there any legislation that mandates that engineers and designers consider gender?
  • Native American Transportation Issues (AME30) is the old ABE80.  From their web site, the Native American Transportation Issues Committee is concerned with research and practice pertaining to transportation issues on or near tribal lands and communities or affecting tribal historical or cultural properties wherever located. Tribal transportation issues include all modes of moving people and goods from one place to another, all relevant agencies including tribal, state, federal, regional and local providers, and all relationships and interactive processes of various governmental units – tribal, federal, state and local – with regard to the development, planning and administration, coordination, and implementation of transportation laws, policies, plans, programs and projects.  ABE80 has worked closely with ADC50 in the past and it would probably be appropriate to put both Committees in the same Section (but see below).
  • Transportation in the Developing Countries (AME40) is the old ABE90.  Other than it being part of the old ABE Policy Section, it is unclear why this Committee is put with the others in this Section.  And it goes without saying, there is no Federal legislation underpinning the activities of this Committee.
  • Accessible Transportation and Mobility (AME50) is a combination of the old ABE60 and APO60 Committees.  From their website, the Committee’s mandate is to educate everyone on the issues and gaps related to mobility needs for people with limited transportation options – people with mobility, sensory and cognitive disabilities; older adults; and individuals without private transportation.  There appears to be no Federal legislation underpinning the activities of this Committee, although some of their work would encompass the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • Transportation and Public Health (AME70) (new*) – This probably comes out of the NCHRP D20112 – Panel on Research Roadmap – Public Health and Transportation.  I don’t believe there is Federal Legislation to focus activities of the Committee, although there should be.
  • Community Resources and Impacts (AME80) (new*) – This probably comes from the roots of ADD20 – Standing Committee on Social and Economic Factors of Transportation.  Other than the relatively vague missives in the National Environmental Policy Act, there is no strong legal underpinning for issues related to this Committee.  I had specific experience working with community concerns over small bridges that were valued by the local community but did not fit within the eligibility criteria of the National Register and hence weren’t subject to Section 106 or 4(f).  Trying to wheel the Department around to seriously considering these as resources within NEPA was a big lift, without mandating legislation.

The NEPA Umbrella – RIP(ped)

As a cultural ecologist, one of the things that is drummed into your head is the concept of the interplay between people and the environment, especially how homo sapiens is just one species in an ecology of earth, perhaps the biggest and baddest species, but still part of the system.  I have been able to align my education and training in my transportation career precisely because of the nature and role of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 are: 

To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality. (my emphasis)

In Section 102 (A), Congress directs that

… all agencies… shall utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact on man’s environment. (my emphasis)

The NEPA Umbrella (Courtesy Missouri Department of Transportation)

I think it is necessary to restate the purpose of NEPA and to remind everyone that NEPA is integrative, system focused, and recognizes the interplay between human activities and the environment within which they operate.  The NEPA umbrella is a concept that has emerged from the 1969 legislation.  Multiple laws, executive orders and regulations are considered in the NEPA process. Not only are environmental features studied; so are impacts to the economy and society.  For my entire career, the NEPA umbrella has been a central starting point in any work.  Preliminary design does not end until a NEPA document is approved, which means all of the umbrellaed laws have been addressed, including Section 106 and 4(f).

In the old TRB structure, the NEPA umbrella was reflected in the makeup of ADC00 – Environment and Energy: Environmental Analysis (ADC10)Air Quality (ADC20)Ecology (ADC30)Noise and Vibration (ADC40);Historic and Archaeological Preservation (ADC50).  Each Committee had underpinning legislation tied to NEPA.

Whither NEPA in the new TRB structure?  It  has been moved to the Data, Planning, and Analysis Group as Environmental Analysis and Ecology (AEP70).  The old ADC30 on Ecology has been merged into that Committee.  Noise and Vibration (old ADC40) has been brought over to that group as AEP80.  Air Quality joins Historic and Archaeological Preservation in the Sustainability and Resilience Group, but under the Transportation and Sustainability Section as AMS10.  The old NEPA umbrella has been shredded, at least as far as TRB is concerned.

The new NEPA Umbrella

As an archaeologist, one of the things that is drummed into your head is the concept of taxonomy and classification.  This is particularly true in artifact analysis, whether it be pottery or lithics.  The goal of classification is to put like things together and separate them from things that are not the same, for the purpose of a higher analysis and understanding.  Often the goal is creating a chronology, but in the past (and to some degree still relevant), types reflect a cultural continuity, e.g., the Beaker people.  A society could be reflected in a particular artifact type.

There is a natural tendency to categorize and classify.  It’s a very human thing to do.  But classifications should be useful in some way.  You can certainly argue that NEPA analysis is an analysis just like planning analysis, and perhaps belongs in that Group.  However, to strip away half of the Committees that used to sit under the NEPA umbrella, e.g. ADC20 and ADC50, and spread them to the winds does not seem useful.

Sustainability and Resilience!

The heavy impact of a rapidly warming planet on infrastructure is indisputable and should be a matter of great concern to all of our public leaders.  It is naturally the role of TRB to get ahead of this crisis and advise agencies.  TRB is right to have created a new group on Sustainability and Resilience.

That being said, when I actually look at the composition of the Group and its sections, I get that sinking feeling that: (a) the leadership of TRB could not agree on how to structure the new Group; (b) they are clueless about how TRB should address the climate crisis; or (c) don’t care.  Simply stated, most of the Committees in the Transportation and Society Section have nothing to do with Sustainability and Resilience, e.g. Women’s Issues in Transportation, or Historic and Archaeological Preservation?!  Many of the other Committees in the Group seem like duplicates, e.g. AME70: Transportation and Public Health and AMS10: Air Quality and Green House Gas Mitigation.  Air quality is a public health issue. That’s why it’s measured. AMR 20: Disaster Response, Recovery, and Business Continuity and AMR50: Natural Hazards and Extreme Weather Events are two sides of the same coin.  

Beyond that, you could argue that real and important Transportation Planning (Section AEP00) must start with Sustainability and Resilience principles, so that maybe it would make more sense to put that entire AM000 Group into Planning, or break AE000 into Data and Analysis in one Group and (real) Planning that considers the climate crisis into another.

Why Should Anyone Care?

I’ve spent over 2,000 words complaining about the new Committee Structure.  Should anyone outside of TRB or even inside TRB even care?  Most committees are being carried forward.  AME60 will exist and persist.

In TRB, structure is resources, more specifically allocation of finite resources.  Committees compete within Sections, Sections within Groups.  It affects budget, symposia allocations, the ear of the Section or Group coordinators, and even the ability to communicate with TRB Leadership.  The balancing of Groups and Sections is the balancing of all of these competing interests, and fairness should dictate that like competes with like.  There is little cohesive within the Transportation and Society Section (AME000) or even within the Sustainability and Resilience Group (AM000).  It is as if all of the scraps from the original cuttings of Groups and Sections were swept up and put under a new rug.  In the process, the NEPA umbrella is discarded.  Important and critical work for TRB with regard to climate change impacts is diluted.  Other Committees that probably should have standing at a high level, such as AME20, are disrespected.  AME20 more realistically should be under the Executive Management Issues Section (AJE00).

To the degree that the new TRB structure is meaningful to transportation professionals across the country, this organization is yet another signal to transportation engineers that people issues are wholly secondary to concrete and asphalt.  People are unpredictable. They complain.  They challenge.  People stand up to the elegantly designed roadway and bridge plans and dare to suggest that transportation infrastructure need to be harmonious with society, not apart from it. People suggest that some of the important factors, like accessibility, or appreciation of the past, are difficult to measure, but nonetheless important to consider.  They are the ones that suggest that the welfare of the bugs and bunnies is also the welfare of all of us.  Constituting the Sustainability and Resilience Group the way it has been put together just seems like a kick in the ass.

Finally, although this might be much ado about very little, we should remind ourselves that money spent on archaeology and historic preservation in transportation projects far outstrips the funds that the National Park Service provides. In virtually every state, DOT’s spend more on archaeology and historic preservation studies than any other agency or group.  So even small signals in the transportation sector can reverberate to the larger preservation community.  To paraphrase Metternich, when transportation archaeology sneezes, historic preservation gets a cold.

The Electric Car Driving Experience. Part 1: Around Town and Hill and Dale

Had to sneak in a picture of Pennsylvania Native Ray Harroun, winner of the first Indianapolis 500. He’s behind the wheel of a Marmon Wasp, not an electric.
  • True or false.  The electric car is small and tinny and generally uncomfortable.
  • True or false.  The electric car is underpowered.
  • True or false.  The range of an electric car is still too small to be practical.
  • True or false.  The weight and distribution of the batteries in the electric car makes it poor in handling.
  • True or false.  The electric car is expensive to maintain.
  • True or false.  The instrument panel of an electric car is difficult to understand and manage.

Guess what?  The answers to all of the above questions are false.  Preacher Beckerman is here to assist you in getting over your anxieties of operating an electric car.  And although we can’t place you into the seat of an electric car to drive around,  my soaring prose should fire your imagination to feel that you are riding beside me.  Or some sh*t like that.

I can speak to the Nissan Leaf experience as we have had one for two months and have put around 1,600 miles on it.  Having had my driver’s license for 50 years with over a half million miles under my belt, I have been behind the wheel on practically every type of passenger vehicle around, as well as a 1974 Suburban and a 1967 Ford F-100 farm truck.  The Leaf is both like and unlike other vehicles on the road today.

The impression you get driving a Nissan Leaf, and probably most other electric cars, is just how normal it feels.  It has 4 passenger doors and a hatchback. You swing open the door, throw your butt on the seat and paw for the seat belt always behind you on the left in a place you almost can reach.  You pull the door shut and adjust the seat and the mirrors, because your spouse used the car last and is somehow not the exact height and trunk length you are.  Ready to go, you put your foot on the brake and press the on switch, which is where the old cigarette lighters used to be back in the day.  You can find the switch because it is lighted even though the car is not started.  You can also find the switch because it is also the same type of starter that the Prius has and I suspect most modern cars have when they use a fob system.  Once upon a time there was this thing call a key and you pushed it into a keyhole and turned it until you heard a starter motor turning. That is unless you owned a 1966 Volvo, in which case you needed to pull out the manual choke first and of course put your left foot on the clutch and the right one on the brake.  In my lifetime no less.

When you push the starter button, you get a few reassuring clicks, but nothing else, no starter motor, no engine noise.  The instrument panel in front of you goes from the dormant how-many-hours-until-the-car-is-charged mode to the operating mode.  If the parking brake is on, you press that switch and it makes a barely audible brrrr as it turns off.  Provided you have opened the garage door, you are ready to go, putting the car into reverse with that nubby little stub of a shifter.

As you back out using either the techy butt-cam as a guide or the old-fashioned over the shoulder look, the steering is remarkably tight, meaning you have to pay attention not to drive the car into the grass on either side or the light pole on the left as you exit the driveway.  Reaching the street, you put the car into drive and hit the gas (now merely a metaphor).  What is the gas pedal on an electric car called, anyway?  The weasels at Nissan call it an “accelerator pedal.”  But the brake is called the brake pedal not the decelerator pedal, so something fishy is going on here. Where’s George Carlin when you need him?

Whether hitting the gas or accelerating, the Leaf jumps to.  The biggest learning step to driving the Leaf is how quick it is from a full stop.   Almost instantly, you are at 25 mph.  What is deceptive is that getting there is in pure silence.  The dc motor doesn’t rumble, whine, or whinny.  You do have to pay attention to your speed as it always feels to be less than it is.  This should not be surprising as the more famous Teslas have 0-60 mph times slightly behind the Porsche 918 Spyder and ahead of the Lamborghinis. Electric cars do have excellent acceleration. The Leaf we have can reach 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, faster than the Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, or Chevy Malibu, but slower than the Dodge Charger R/T.

While driving, the Leaf is incredible quiet and most of what you hear are the tires, wind, and other cars on the road.  This is a serious safety issue that will have to be addressed and soon.  Pedestrians simply can’t hear the car coming, with no muffler and no engine noise.  Currently, new cars sold in the EU must come equipped with an acoustic sound system that will produce a sound when reversing or driving below 12 mph.  The new electric Ford Mustang will generate synthetic motor sounds which apparently is like a SCI-FI v-8 in a Bladerunner movie.  Personally, I would prefer Joe Pesci yelling at people to get the f**k out of the way.

2019 Leaf Battery pack

Driving the roads, hill and dale, an electric car handles just like a regular car- brakes brake, the steering wheel turns, the accelerator thingy does its thing.  The Leaf is not a large car, certainly not the Buick, more on par with the Prius, perhaps a smidge smaller.  The seats are comfortable and adjustable and even heated (an option we took to get the safety package).  Other than the overall quiet and the quick acceleration, an electric car is about as normal as a car can get, once you have it on the road.  Speaking of handling, the batteries on the Leaf are situated low in the body literally between the four wheels.  This helps keeps the Leaf on the road, in twists and turns.

2019 Leaf Dashboard

With regard to the instrument panel, Nissan has divided duties between the instruments that are in front of the steering wheel and instruments on an 8-inch touch screen where the radio would be.  The instrument cluster in front of the steering wheel gives you the standard time, speed, etc.  The central control panel is where the standard radio, phone, and climate controls are placed.  As with most recent cars, much of the audio, climate control, and cruise controls can be operated on the steering wheel itself. The differences between the 2019 Leaf and the 2015 Prius are only one of degree and probably due to the difference in ages of the two cars rather than the one being electric and the other a hybrid.  What the Nissan does have are additional screens in both panels to monitor and track electric usage.  The kWh gauge replaces the mpg gauge.  On the touch screen display there are gauges to monitor climate system electric usage versus other systems usage, overall usage and scenarios for added or reduced range from turning the climate system on or off.  Most of these additional gauges and displays are geared to help the driver control and monitor the overall range.  

1927 Chevrolet dashboard
1930 Ford Model A dashboard

As a historical note, the locating of controls and gauges to the right of the driver is not new.  In the 1920’s, all of the controls were in the center of the dash, not in the driver’s line of sight.  In summary, the location of controls and gauges in the Leaf, an electric, is very similar to that of the Prius.  The main difference is the addition of gauges that monitor electric usage.

And as a final point, when driving home from an errand and past a gas station, I usually smile as this vehicle will not be visiting there, unless I need a coffee or beef stick.  The routine we’ve settled into is to charge the Leaf overnight on our Level 2 charger we have in the garage.  With a charge, we are getting about a week’s worth of travel around town and running errands.

In another post, I discussed the issues of range, availability of charging stations in Pennsylvania, and cost of operation.  The intent of this blog was to demystify the actual driving experience.  Driving an electric car is much like driving a gas-powered vehicle, except it is quieter and has more pep.  All things being equal, I’ll stay with the electric car as a superior form of transportation, at least for local trips less than 75 miles.  Based purely on the driving experience, if you are in the market for the next car, Preacher Beckerman says you should take a look at an electric.

An Electric Runabout? In 2019?

Although not clear from the book cover, Tom’s electric runabout was painted glossy purple to distinguish it from the other race car entries.

The initial blog, “Ira Beckerman and the Electric Runabout” and the heading for future posts, “The Electric Runabout” uses words that seem positively archaic, especially when talking about cutting 21st century age technology.  Why that choice?

 In 1910, a publisher Edward Stratemeyer, began a series of children’s books featuring Tom Swift, an inventive and science-minded teenager.  In quick order, Tom creates a motor cycle, a motor boat, an airship, and a submarine boat before coming to his project for the 5th story, an electric car.  This vehicle featured a powerful new rechargeable battery that could go 100 miles per hour and had a 400 mile range. One hundred and ten years later, we are still striving for a car as good as Tom Swift’s.  Elon Musk, are you listening?

Key to Tom’s electric runabout was the use of a solution of potassium hydrate and a lithium hydrate boost to run an oxide of nickel with steel and oxide of iron negative electrodes.  The nickel-iron battery had been perfected by Edison in 1901.  Keep in mind that most electric cars of the time ran on lead acid batteries.  Lithium might have been a lucky guess for Tom, but it is the key to modern rechargeable batteries.  Tom’s new battery would take half the recharge time of other batteries.  The race that he entered was 500 miles around a track in Long island. Twenty cars were entered, including other electric cars, steam and gasoline powered.  In 1910, electric cars were at their zenith and it was not clear that gasoline powered vehicles would prevail.  Introduction of the electric starter in 1912 pretty much sealed the advantage of gasoline powered cars, along with the inherent problems of electric cars of the time, being range, recharge times of the lead acid batteries, and the initial higher cost of manufacturing.

A 1909 roadster at the Vanderbilt race. No windshield, two seats, relatively light.

The runabout that Tom Swift built was a common vehicle of the time, a light basic style with no windshield, top or doors and a single row of seats.  They were designed for light use over short distances, distinguishing them from the tonneau, touring, phaeton, coupe, and sedan.  Over time, the runabout was replaced by the roadster.  We don’t use the term runabout much anymore, but it is still used in Britain to refer to the same kind of small car used over short journeys.

Tom Swift was inspired by inventors such as Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Glenn Curtiss, and Alberto Santos-Dumont.  He inspired more recent inventors such as Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Wozniak, and Ray Kurzweil.  Given that the current crop of electric cars are best used for light use over short distances, perhaps runabout would be a fair descriptor.  So thank you, Tom Swift.

Ira Beckerman and the Electric Runabout: An Introduction

On September 16, 2019, Linda and I bought our first all-electric car, a 2019 Nissan Leaf.  How we came to buy an electric car was the result of a the convergence of several events.  First, we had reached the emotional limit on the 2008 Buick Lacrosse we had acquired from Linda’s mom, a big lumbering couch that got 18 miles per gallon.  It ran and we owned it clear, but that was about all you could say about it.  Secondly, we had someone inquire about the car/couch, someone who wanted that basic transportation.  It got us thinking about what would replace it.  We have a 2015 Prius with about 60000 miles on it.  Our strategy for the last 20 years has been to have one newer car and one older car, rotating out the older one after driving it into the ground (figuratively, please!).

We had a long discussion as to whether we could actually manage on one car only, which would be cheaper if somewhat inconvenient.  We are both busy in our retirements and have enough appointments independent from one another as to make a single vehicle household impractical.  So a second car was going to be in our lives for a while. But an electric?

Why Should We Care?

We have been mindful of what is happening around us in the world.  The Environment Section of the Blog is a result of that mindfulness. If we are going to be better than OK Boomers, we need to continue to reduce our carbon footprint.  Last year, we put up solar panels, a start.  The next step seemed to be getting an electric vehicle, an EV.

On moral grounds, decarbonizing where we can seems compelling.  The average automobile uses something like 650 gallons of gasoline a year.  [The number is squishy, because no one really tracks it.  We don’t track average mpg for all cars, only new cars. We count total gallons used nationally, but not for the individual car. So any rough number will do.]  We do know that each gallon yields 19.64 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere.  So, roughly each gasoline powered car pushes a bit over 6 (2,000 pound) tons of CO2 into the air each year.  For comparison, 6 tons is slightly less CO2 than Pennsylvania produces every second of every minute of every day in a year.  While you might think that this means cars don’t produce much CO2, keep in mind that there are over 8 million passenger cars on the road in Pennsylvania, so the automotive car sector contributes 20% of all CO2 produced each year, which is not insignificant.  One car barely qualifies as a flea bite, but a swarm of cars can affect our climate.

The economics behind electric cars don’t seem to be in our favor. Gasoline is $2.70 a gallon, the lowest it’s been in 20 years.  The Administration is pushing coal, and is fighting CAFE standards.  Americans bought 43 pickup trucks for every electric car bought last year. Toyota sold more RAV4 SUV’s by March 10th than all of the electric cars of all models sold last year.  Registered electric cars in Pennsylvania topped 7,600 last year, all of 0.09% of registered cars statewide.  In Cumberland County, we were likely the 120th registered electric car.  What is wrong with this picture?

Fritchie Electric Car, ca. 1905

The Case for Electric Cars

Electric cars have been among us for over 100 years.  In urban areas, they preceded gasoline powered vehicles.  In 1900,  38 percent of cars were electric powered, with 22 percent powered by gasoline.  The remainder were steam powered.  Today, the technology for EVs is reasonably mature.  Practical electric cars, relying on lithium-ion batteries, have been on the road for around 10 years, beginning with the Tesla Roadster in 2008.  The issue with range is being addressed stepwise, so that now there are several choices for cars that get more than 200 miles on a charge.  Infrastructure is being developed nationwide, but unevenly, so that it is possible to see a day in the not too distant future where effective and quick chargers will be no more than 40 miles from anywhere.  And finally, electric cars do not emit CO2.

Cost has also dropped, largely due to the cost of manufacturing the batteries.  Both the entry level Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf Plus have MSRP’s under $37,000 (before any credits or rebates).  [See Ford Vs Ferrari?… for a side-by-side comparison of Leaf Vs Bolt.] The cost of ownership is also greatly influenced by Federal and state credits and rebates.  The tax credit landscape is uneven, as some cars have reached the 200,000 car limit for full rebates.  As of this writing, The Tesla rebate for the Model 3 has expired.  The Chevy Bolt has a $1,875 Credit until March 31, 2020.  The Nissan Leaf has a $7,500 Credit that is not set to expire in the near future.  In addition to the Federal Tax Credits, Pennsylvania is offering a $1,500 rebate at least through December 31, 2019.

Caveats

To be clear, owning an electric car isn’t for everyone, at least not yet.  Range is an issue, but not insurmountable.  Few EVs have a range comparable to a gas-powered vehicle, which is usually over 300 miles.  More importantly, using an EV for travel depends on the presence and abundance of EV charging stations.  Charging stations come in two main types – Level 2 and Level 3.  Level 2 chargers run at 240 Volts and most vehicles can use them interchangeably.  However, it takes approximately 8-12 hours to fully charge a vehicle that has a 200+ mile range.  For a road trip, that’s a show stopper, unless your one-way trip distance is within that 200 mile range.  Level 3 chargers generally can put 80% of the electricity bank into the “tank” in 30-45 minutes.  This translates to stops every 3 hours to take a break and recharge.  Which is not bad for most drivers, who should take breaks every couple of hours of driving.  

These Level 3 Chargers run at 480 Volts and in Pennsylvania are not everywhere common.  For example, on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, there are exactly 5 stops with ESVE stations: Oakmont Plum, New Stanton, Bowmansville, Peter J. Camiel, and King of Prussia Service Plaza.  From Harrisburg travelling west, the first and only charging station is 170 miles away.  Travelling east on the Turnpike, the distance between Oakmont and the next charging station (Bowmansdale) is 240 miles, beyond the range of most EVs.  As one might expect, the bulk of the Level 3 stations are in and near Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Outside of these urban areas, you need to know and memorize the locations of Level 3 stations to plan a trip. Fortunately, or unfortunately, you don’t need to memorize a long list.

Driving habits also can and should play into the decision to own an EV.  If you are primarily using a car to run errands and get around locally, an EV can definitely fit.  We have the luxury of owning 2 cars – one for local driving (the Leaf) and one for trips (the Prius).  We also have the luxury of a garage and owning our own house.  So we have installed a Level 2 charger in our garage, for around $1,200 including wiring.  Currently, we are getting about 7-9 days between charges.  When the battery gets low, we just plug it in overnight.  There are incentives that Pennsylvania provides to put in publicly accessible Level 2 and 3 charging stations, which could include apartments and stores.  More places are needed.

Leaf under the Hood – The motor is under the big black box.

Let’s return to the economics of the electric car.  On the negative side is the range and the higher initial cost.  The base model Nissan Leaf Plus, with the 226 mile range, has an MSRP of $35,550.  A base model Nissan Sentra, somewhat comparable, has an MSRP of $17,990.  However, the MSRP is not the only number.  Taking the available Federal Credits and Pennsylvania Rebate brings the MSRP down to $26,550.  Secondly, EVs have a “fuel” economy about twice that of gas-powered vehicles.  To drive 100 miles in a Leaf, you would use about 27.4 kWh, which at $0.1275 per kWh (Pennsylvania’s average), would put you out $3.49.  The same Sentra, which gets a combined 30 mpg, would use 3.33 gallons of gas.  At the current $2.70 per gallon, you would be spending $9.00.  For a driver who puts 15,000 miles on a car a year, the savings in fuel would be $825 a year. Over 5 years, it would add up to over $4,000, to the advantage of the Leaf owner.  So our $17,000 original differential between Leaf and Sentra is now more realistically $4,000.  On top of that, you have a much simpler mechanical system, with no exhaust or catalytic converter, no fuel injectors, no radiator, no oil changes, etc.  Kelly Blue Book puts the Leaf at around $250 less in maintenance over the first 5 years.

When we discuss a car in the terms of economics, we are usually buying transportation.  We are not brand loyal, having owned a Toyota, Dodge, Plymouth, Mazda, Volvo, Subaru, Ford, and Buick. This usually means we are price sensitive, and so it was with this purchase.  I had to wipe the drool off the Tesla Model S, or the Jaguar I-Pace.  So although we were willing to pay more to reduce our carbon footprint, we were not willing to simply surrender bushels of money to make a point.

Ultimately, once we were all in, we see our responsibilities differently.  Having now purchased an EV, we feel that our civic responsibility is to act as a resource and answer questions for others that might be curious.  You might say we have become proselytizers for EVs.

The Bottom Line

If you are considering the next car, do not dismiss an EV as a choice.  Ask yourself first, “Are you using this primarily for around town and do you have a second alternative for long trips?  Do you have a place to charge an EV?” If the answers are yes, you may be a candidate for an EV.  If you aren’t ready yet, consider paying attention to the market and emerging models.  The direction is going to be toward electric and away from gasoline as we enter the 3rd decade of this century.

Ford Versus Ferrari? No, Nissan versus Chevrolet.

In Pennsylvania, as in much of the country, the choice of electric cars under $50,000 is sorely limited. Both the Hyundai Kona EV and the Kia Niro EV, which have more than 200 mile range and are both under $40,000, are currently the darlings of the electric car press. Neither are sold in Pennsylvania.  This leaves the Nissan Leaf Plus, the Chevy Bolt, and the Tesla Model 3 as the three contenders sold here at this time.

The Tesla Model 3 comes in 3 levels, with the Standard Plus coming in for a 250 mile range, making it the level that is comparable to the Nissan and Chevy. For the Model 3 specifically, the MSRP is $39,490.  Destination charges and fees are an additional $1,200 and the current Federal Tax Credit is $1,875 through the end of 2019.  There is also a $1,500 Pennsylvania rebate for the purchase of an electric car. All Teslas come with driver assistance features including emergency braking, collision warning, and blind-spot monitoring.  As these were important for us, I am including these features in the comparisons.

The sale price for the Tesla comes to $37,315, not including taxes or other registration fees. Of the three potential electrics, the Tesla was the most expensive.  Much has been written about the Model 3 and we did not test drive it.  We did not consider the Tesla Model 3 primarily due to the higher net cost, and some concerns about manufacturing quality; however, for the reader interested in the Tesla, do not let our judgments cloud yours.

Linda and I had the opportunity to test drive both the Leaf Plus and the Bolt and our comments are listed below.  Although I will be talking about the Leaf throughout, it should be understood that it is the Leaf Plus with the bigger battery and range that is our focus.

Nissan LeafChevy Bolt
Trim LevelSV Plus w/ Technology PackageLT with Driver Confidence Packages I and II
Motor214 hp front wheel drive200 hp front-wheel drive
Battery (kWh)6260
Range (miles)215238
Mpg-e104 combined119 combined
Curb Weight (lbs)3,7803,563
Wheelbase (in)106.3102.4
DC Charge Cable IncludedYes$750 option

There were a number of criteria important to our decision in choosing a vehicle.  Side-by-side, here are our judgments.

Safety Features. We wanted both vehicles to have advanced safety features such as blind spot monitoring and collision avoidance.

Included in the Technology package (which could not be added on to the base S model)-Automatic Emergency Braking with Pedestrian Detection , Intelligent Forward Collision Warning , Blind Spot Warning , Rear Cross Traffic Alert , Intelligent Lane Intervention 

Included in the Driver Confidence Packages I and II – Rear Park Assist, Rear Cross Traffic Alert, Lane Change Alert with Side Blind Zone Alert, Low Speed Forward Automatic BrakingForward Collision Alert, Lane Keep Assist with Lane Departure Warning, Following Distance Indicator, Front Pedestrian Braking, IntelliBeam automatic high beam headlamps

Conclusion: Both Leaf and Bolt have all the safety features we would want.

Instrument:  The layout of the instrument panel is a concern for us.  We need to be able to drive the car and monitor performance and controls without being distracted.  We are concerned that a 100% touch screen approach would not be safe.

Instruments were clearly marked in front of the driver, with the usual range of speed controls, audio, and phone on the steering wheel.  The 8-inch touchscreen in the dashboard to the right contains more information on performance, phone and audio settings, and climate control indicators. The climate controls are actually on a button panel below the screen, but it is intuitive.

Instruments were clearly marked in front of the driver, with the usual range of speed controls, audio, and phone on the steering wheel.  The 10.2-inch touchscreen in the dashboard to the right contains more information on performance, phone and audio settings, and climate control indicators.

Conclusion: Both the Leaf and Bolt instrument panel layouts were intuitive and easy to use without distracting from driving.

Handling and Street Performance

The Leaf handled well and compared to other compact sized cars such as the Corolla or Civic.  We did not use the special e-pedal feature to brake, which would have reduced the distance to a stop.  

The Bolt was more nimble than the Leaf and handled and cornered well, as would be expected from a smaller car.

Conclusion: The Bolt was clearly the better driving experience.  Being lighter and smaller, it handled better than the larger and heavier Leaf.

Seating Comfort

The car could clearly seat 4 adults comfortably; putting in a 5thadult might have been a bit tight.  Leg room and head room both in front or back was good, but neither of us are tall people.

Even though the Bolt was a smaller car than the Leaf, there was still adequate seating room for 4 adults.  The potential for a 5thadult was definitely not there.

Conclusion: For everyday driving, with two adults, both the Leaf and Bolt are comfortable.  Should there be a need for carrying 5 adults, the Leaf could manage and the Bolt could not.

Driver Vision

Vision from the driver’s side to the rear and to the left and right rear was generally unobstructed. Even without the additional safety features, we were able to see around us.

Vision from the driver’s side to the rear and to the left and right rear was generally unobstructed. Even without the additional safety features, we were able to see around us.

Conclusion: Independent from the driver assist technologies, both the Leaf and Bolt had mostly unobstructed 360 degree views from the driver’s side.

Cargo Space

At 23.6 square feet, the Leaf has enough room for two suitcases, or several bags of groceries, without folding down the rear seats.  The folded seats do not go flush with the trunk floor, as there are batteries underneath. This diminishes the overall rear cargo area.

At 16.9 square feet, the Bolt can barely hold two small suitcases or three bags of groceries.  As with the Leaf, the folded down seats do not go flush with the trunk floor.

Conclusion: The Leaf has enough cargo space in the trunk area to do light shopping or travelling.  The Bolt has minimal cargo space in the trunk area, reminiscent of what you get in a two-seater roadster like the Miata.

DC Fast Charger (Level 2). An essential extra to be able to charge on the road.

Included in Trim Level

$750 additional

Cost as equipped

$32,205MSRP of $41,205 less $7,500 Federal Tax Credit less $1,500 Pennsylvania State Rebate

$36,415MSRP of $39,790 less $1,875 Federal Tax Credit (expiring December 31, 2019) less $1,500 Pennsylvania State Rebate

Discussion

Both the Leaf and Bolt appear to be more than adequate cars for in-town driving and short trips.  The Bolt is smaller, but more nimble.  The Leaf has more cargo room and much more usable cargo room than the Bolt.  The Leaf uses the CHAdeMO fast charging standard, while the Bolt uses the more common CCS standard.  Currently, there are more CCS fast chargers out there than CHAdeMO fast chargers; however the caveat for now is that either car is more or less limited to short trips and in-town driving.  Unfortunately, this seems like the old VHS/Beta wars over standards, which hopefully gets resolved before most everyone is driving electrics. For now, place your bets.  

Before rebates and credits, the Bolt is $1,500 cheaper than the Leaf Plus with a longer range.  Because the Chevy Volt took most of the Federal credits sales for Chevy, the Bolt only has a $1,875 tax credit attached to it.  Sales of the Leaf have been slow since the beginning, I believe primarily due to the limited range of early Leaf models.  For now, the Leaf has a $7,500 Federal Credit, and when added to the Pennsylvania State Rebate, offers you a $9,000 discount on the vehicle.  On this basis alone, the Leaf Plus is the better value.

Verdict

What ultimately decided the choice of vehicle for us was the cargo space, with the Leaf winning hands down. As either car would have to be our all-purpose shopping and transport vehicle, cargo space was important.  The configuration of the Leaf cargo space was also more friendly to activities such as grocery shopping.

If you generally have a small family (1 or 2 adults) and are planning to pair your driving with another vehicle for longer trips, go with Leaf Plus.  The 216 mile range takes it to the same class of electric car as other contenders. For now, you have to go to another state or spend much more (Tesla Model 3 or Model S) to get above 240 miles in range.

If you plan to make this your only car and plan to use it for trips and you can live with the smaller cargo space, go with the Bolt.  The charging standard (CCS) is more common and the range is greater.  The cost differential between the Leaf or Bolt is small enough to not be the only criteria

Natural Gaslighting

Recently, I received a cheery e-mail from UGI, who provides our natural gas.  They were touting their “Environmental Sustainability Initiatives.” It said, in part: “Natural Gas is much cleaner than alternatives like coal, oil and electric (site to source)…switching households to these alternative fuels (sic) to these alternative fuels to natural gas has reduced greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to removing 103,000 cars from the road, resulting in nearly $108 million in annual energy cost savings.” (My emphasis) (Their emphasis)

Now, I expect to be outright lied to by the current Administration in Washington on matters related to the environment.   I expect to hear about jobs and cost savings from the fossil fuel industry. I did not expect UGI to blow smoke up my behind regarding the purported environmental virtues of natural gas.

An e-mail from UGI

Let’s deconstruct UGI’s statements.  On the surface, once natural gas gets into your home, it is half as bad as coal and oil with regard to CO2 emissions.  CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases that is heating up our planet at an unprecedented rate.  Cutting them drastically is required for our children and grandchildren to have something like a normal existence on this Earth.  If you are burning coal, then your CO2 production will be approximately 205-228 pounds for each million BTU, depending on the type of coal.  Bituminous burns dirtier than anthracite.  If you are burning home heating oil, then you are producing 161 pounds of CO2 for the same energy.  For natural gas, it would be 117 pounds of CO2.

Is this environmentally sustainable?  The short answer is no.  The most optimistic scenarios state that we need to be carbon neutral (no net addition of CO2 into the atmosphere) by no later than 2050 to avoid heating the planet more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above what it is today.  Bad things will happen even if we achieve this goal, but much worse will occur if we don’t.  

Scientifically Accurate Rendering of Earth on January 1, 2100.

To avoid the worst, we have to get to carbon neutral and quickly.  And while natural gas may emit half the CO2 of other fossil fuels, it is not a long-term solution and will not lead to environmental sustainability.  It is like Stalin and Hitler in a room talking to Roosevelt, and, Stalin saying, “Hey, FDR, I’m only half as bad as Hitler.”

Claim 1

How is natural gas cleaner than “electric (site to source)”?  Electric, site to source, means taking into account the fact that electricity is usually generated at a power plant, then transmitted some distance to the home.  In transmission, some electricity is lost, so there is a factor worked in.  Fair enough.  UGI, I believe, is also assuming electric generation is averaged from a combination of coal, natural gas, nuclear, and other (including renewables) some of which are CO2 emitters.  When you figure in the creation of electricity from dirty sources and factor in the loss in transmission, it is probably true that natural gas burned in the home is cleaner than site to source electricity.

However, the statement leaves you with the impression that natural gas is cleaner (in CO2 emissions) than electricity, which is false if that electricity is produced from nuclear or renewables like solar or wind.  Under some scenarios, natural gas is cleaner than electricity, but the statement completely avoids the option of renewables, which I believe was intentional.  Their claim also sweeps under the carpet the issue of site pollution from natural gas production at the well (see below).  We have an apples to oranges comparison here.

Claim 2

Let’s look at the second claim of reducing emissions equivalent to removing 103,000 cars from the road over 10 years.  I’m don’t know what UGI means by that statement.  There is no citation.  Secondly, this claim only makes sense in relation to something.  I could claim reading this blog is equivalent to extending your life by 2 months.  (No, it only seems like the time spent reading this was like 2 months.)

Let’s humor our good folks at UGI.  What is the emissions equivalent of 103,000 cars from the road over 10 years?   We can do a back of the napkin analysis.  First, let’s assume its 10,300 cars a year for 10 years.  The average US car is driven 13,476 miles per year (FWHA’s numbers).  There is no place to find the current gas mileage for the entire US fleet, just new cars (which is 24.7 mpg in 2016).  In 2018, cars and light vehicles consumed 142.86 gallons of gasoline (US Energy Department).  In the US, we drove 2,220,801 million miles in 2017, per the USDOT.  This computes to an average of 15.5 mpg.  To drive 13,476 miles at 15.5 mpg, you would need 869 gallons of gas.  Each gallon produces 19.60 pounds of CO2, so in a year each car would produce 17,032 pounds of CO2, or 8.52 tons (hereon in when we say ton, we mean the 2,000 pound short ton).  Our 10,300 cars a year would end up producing 87,756 tons of CO2 a year.  Sounds impressive…

…Until you realize that Pennsylvania’s total CO2 emissions are 239.1 million tons a year (US Energy Dept.), and that there are 4.68 million cars registered in PA (in 2015).  Against some unknown standard, UGI has reduced Pennsylvania’s CO2 emissions by 0.024 percent and reduced the number of CO2 emitting cars by 0.22%.  103,000 sounds like a large number, until you figure out what it means in the big picture. 

But Wait! There’s More.

To now, we have limited our discussion to source consumption of natural gas (although UGI was more than happy to compare source natural gas to site electricity).  If we squint, we can try to believe that natural gas is only half as bad as other fossil fuels and therefore might be a bridging fuel to the carbon-neutral future. What happens when we look at the site production numbers.  

For years, we have known that methane is a greenhouse gas.  The good news is that methane stays in the atmosphere for only a few decades, as opposed to CO2 which can remain for centuries.  The bad news is that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, something like 34 times a potent.

Furthermore, the calculation of 34 times as potent is comparing methane and CO2 over a 100 year span.  Methane’s greatest impact is in the first 20 years. For the shorter 20-year span when methane is active, the global warming potential (GWP) is 84-87 times that of CO2 (EPA).

So what does this have to do with natural gas? Natural gas is mostly methane.  All wells leak a bit and what they are leaking is methane-dominated natural gas.  Leaking from the well head is not a given and well designed and constructed wells leak very little.  The current EPA estimate is that wells leak about 1.4%.  Unfortunately, a new analysis suggests that the current methane leak rate is closer to 2.3 percent, as reported in the Journal Science

Without running you through another calculation, I think you can see that any small leakage that is magnified 84 times will have a large impact over the next 20 years, totally overwhelming any short-term advantage of natural gas over other fossil fuels.  Clearly others are seeing that methane leakage from natural gas is a problem and in Pennsylvania our Governor Wolf rolled out methane restrictions in 2016.  Unfortunately, those restrictions are limited to new wells. Existing wells continue to remain unregulated for methane.  Ultimately, natural gas is bad for the atmosphere in the short term.  Under current ground rules and regulation, there is no benefit for using natural gas as a bridging fuel. None.

It’s Complicated

Last year, we finally took the plunge and installed solar panels on our house which will generate clean and renewable energy for 30 years.  Rated at 7.5kw, we are removing 3.2 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year.  Good for us.  However, in 2011 we replaced our oil furnace with a high energy natural gas boiler, which produces both our heat and hot water.  Last year we added a gas range for cooking.  On average we have used 97.84 mcf (thousand cubic feet) of natural gas each year.  Yes, we reduced our carbon footprint by changing from heating oil to natural gas, but we did not eliminate it.  Not considering the site sources of methane emission and focusing only on the source CO2, we are putting an average of 5.7 tons into the atmosphere. Not good for us.

Our Natural Gas Boiler

The hot water heating system we have is efficient and effective and keeps our home toasty through the winter.  The hot water is essentially on demand as we have no water heater.  Our 8 year old boiler is working fine and only needs an annual tune-up.  I personally like cooking with natural gas. I think I am a much better cook for it.  Today, we have limited options for switching to an all-electric boiler.  Most of the market for hydronic baseboard heat (the fancy technical term) is premised on natural gas-powered boilers. There is a small market for electric boilers that do the same, so it will come down to a matter of will and finances.

Our (beloved) Gas Range

With regard to our gas range, the logical side of my brain says that cooking is the same – gas versus electric, and electric can be carbon free. The emotional side of my brain says gas is superior, especially on the burners, especially in the ability to micro-control the heat immediately.  Ultimately, I feel we will surrender to modernity and the planet and switch back to an electric range.  It may take some time as the range is less than a year old.  Rather than taking the step of changing our boiler, we are looking into adding insulation to the attic.  Using less natural gas is one good way to reduce our footprint. 

In the meantime, what we can and should do is to pressure our representatives and our gas companies to fully embrace the monitoring of gas wells and pipelines for leakage and to enforce strict regulations on the production of natural gas.  As I speak, the Pennsylvania Environmental Board is vetting proposed rules restricting methane emissions from existing wells. Even fast tracked (it is not) and with the embrace of the General Assembly (I have my doubts), it will take at least another year for the regulations to take effect.

Of course, it would help if UGI would make some attempt to be truthful regarding the impacts of natural gas consumption on the atmosphere and the warming planet.  At least they could stop gaslighting us.