Mobilizing the Region » Freight

Federal Transportation Bill Could Mean Big Changes for Freight — Or Not

Steven Higashide — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:21:54 +0000

A national freight program could help pay for port and rail projects that are central to the region's economy. Photo of Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal by Albert E. Theberge/NOAA.

[Update: On Wednesday, the Senate's Commerce Committee voted to include much of the FREIGHT Act in its portion of the Senate's transportation reauthorization bill. More at T4America's blog.]

Among the changes introduced in MAP-21, the Senate’s version of the reauthorization bill which sets all federal surface transportation policy, is an unprecedented national freight program. With some changes, this program could fill the policy vacuum around federal investment in rail and port projects. This would make it easier for states to fund alternatives to long-haul trucks that aggravate congestion, damage roads, and lower quality of life in some residential neighborhoods. But if the program stays as is, it could end up becoming just another funding source for roads, and the tri-state region needs more than that.

Currently, poor connections between the national freight rail network and the northeast mean that 90% of cargo entering New York and Connecticut arrives via truck. Freight rail projects—such as the long-discussed Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel between NJ and NY, as well as smaller projects like those in New York’s State Rail Plan—would take some of these long-haul trucks off of the region’s congested roads, lowering emissions and reducing the heavy toll that trucks take on the region’s roadways (one 18-wheeler truck causes as much road damage as 9,600 cars, according to the Government Accountability Office). Port projects are also critical, given how central the Port of New York and New Jersey is to both the regional and the national economy.

But while most federal transportation funds are distributed to states according to legislative formulas, no such program exists for freight rail or port projects. Instead, states have had to rely on earmarks (which are being phased out) and a handful of small grant programs. The proposed transportation bill would direct USDOT to designate a national freight network and, moreover, would create a $2.1 billion/year National Freight Program to fund state-level projects that make shipping faster.

In the current version of the Senate’s bill, however, only 10% of the freight program’s funds could be used for rail and maritime projects, and only if USDOT certified that such projects were more cost-effective than a road project. (The sign-off requirement would not apply to road projects). Although states would also be allowed to use up to 10% of another funding program in the bill for freight rail (the Transportation Mobility Program), they clearly wouldn’t have the flexibility they need to invest in the most critical freight projects.

New Jersey elected officials have proposed two fixes to the keep-on-truckin’ ethos. The first, an amendment to MAP-21 from Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), would remove the 10% cap on rail and port projects, remove the USDOT sign-off requirement, and require states to consider environmental impacts on communities when evaluating projects. The amendment was first offered in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and could be reintroduced when MAP-21 is closer to a full Senate vote.

The second is the FREIGHT Act (S327/HR1338), which was sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Albio Sires. It would expand MAP-21′s freight provisions by:

Establishing performance-based criteria to evaluate freight projects, so that federal policy incentivizes projects that improve shipping delays and safety, and reduce air, water, and noise pollution.
Creating a competitive grant program for freight projects. (Read more about the FREIGHT Act on MTR and T4America’s blog.)

The Senate’s Commerce Committee, which handles freight issues, will meet Wednesday and is likely to debate the inclusion of the FREIGHT Act’s provisions in MAP-21.

Stall Tactics Slow NYC’s Solid Waste Plan

Veronica Vanterpool — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:20:01 +0000

It’s been five years since NYC passed a landmark Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) to alleviate the burden of garbage disposal in low-income communities and communities of color throughout the five boroughs, but most of the plan’s benefits have yet to materialize. Implementation of the SWMP, which was passed by the NYC Council in 2006, has been plagued by legal delays and funding constraints. For communities still making garbage concessions and hosting a disproportionate share of NYC’s garbage, frustrations with the stall tactics are mounting.

Most waste transfer stations in New York City are located in just two neighborhoods, but efforts to more equitably handle the city's waste are running into opposition. (Click to view a graphic from the Organization of Waterfront Neighborhoods detailing the locations of waste transfer stations in the city).

A fully implemented plan would better balance garbage management throughout NYC by requiring each borough to handle its waste at new marine transfer stations where the waste would be barged out, instead of the existing land-based transfer stations, where waste is trucked out. This would reduce the number of trucks trekking through communities, such as the South Bronx, and Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and contributing to these communities’ environmental, health, and safety concerns.

Central to SWMP implementation is the construction of four new marine transfer stations (MTS) to be located at former or existing MTS sites in North Shore, Queens; Southwest, Brooklyn; Hamilton Avenue, Brooklyn; and 91st Street, Manhattan that would handle each borough’s solid waste, most of which is now trucked to the Bronx and Brooklyn. An old transfer station at West 59th Street, Manhattan would be refurbished and reopened. New recycling facilities will also be built in Gansevoort, Manhattan and Sunset Park, Brooklyn. But opposition to two of the Manhattan facilities has stalled the solid waste management plan.

Manhattan Resisting Fair Share

Four different lawsuits have delayed construction of the 91st Street marine transfer station. A 2005 lawsuit unsuccessfully challenged the environmental review, and was rejected by an appellate court in 2008. While that appeal was in process, a second lawsuit was filed in 2006 claiming that construction impacted a nearby “public” park, Asphalt Green. But this claim was denied in 2009 as the court ruled the privately owned and operated Asphalt Green park was not “public.” Plaintiffs swiftly appealed, but the appellate court upheld the earlier ruling in a recently rendered (June 7, 2011) decision. Meanwhile, the third and fourth lawsuits, filed in August 2009, challenged the issuance of various construction permits. These suits were combined and then dismissed by a judge in June 2010, only to be appealed. A decision by the appellate court is still pending. Additionally, the permit for the Southwest, Brooklyn MTS is awaiting a final determination by the state Department of Environmental Conservation as that agency waits to see how the court rules on the 91st Street permit. In the interim, construction on both sites is being delayed.

Opponents of the 91st Street station have even encouraged legislators to support legislation that would prohibit the construction of a marine transfer station within 800 feet of public housing. At face value, this might seem a laudable environmental justice effort. But the legislation applies only to marine waste transfer stations, not the more common land-based facilities that dot neighborhoods like the South Bronx and Williamsburg. In fact, it would affect only the marine transfer station at 91st Street, making it little more than a thinly veiled attempt to win the support of low-income residents and residents of color for the benefit of keeping the 91st Street MTS out of the affluent Upper East Side.

The Gansevoort community is also equally opposed to sharing the garbage burden. In 2007 and 2008, Assemblymembers and residents of the Gansevoort community fought to block the recycling facility from being built in Gansevoort Peninsula on Manhattan’s West Side. The NYS Legislature eventually did pass a bill in June 2008 amending the Hudson River Park Act and allowing the marine transfer station to be built. However, as a concession to the three Gansevoort Assemblymembers in opposition (Deborah Glick, Richard Gottfried and Linda Rosenthal), a memorandum of understanding to replace or pay for existing parkland (with $25M from NYC and $25M from NYS) impacted by the construction of the site was to be signed between the state and city. Apparently, that hasn’t yet happened, although NYC has already set aside the money in its capital budget. Until that memo is signed, no ground can be broken at the Gansevoort location.

The Solid Waste Management Plan surfaced from these contentious legal battles only to narrowly escape the budget ax earlier this year. In his draft budget released in February, Mayor Bloomberg proposed delaying funding for construction of the four marine transfer stations by five to eight years because of budget restrictions. However, that proposal was dropped amidst outcry by the NYC Council and advocacy by the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. The construction will continue as planned, though funding for each of the projects has been staggered; 91st Street and Southwest, Brooklyn will receive funding in fiscal year 2012, while the Gansevoort recycling facility will receive funding in 2013.

Progress, But Frustratingly Slow

Some SWMP progress has been made. NYC-handled waste from Staten Island, the Bronx, and Northern Brooklyn (representing more than 30% of waste collected by NYC) is now leaving the city via rail, not trucks, thanks to new rail export contracts. Construction has begun on two marine transfer stations (North Shore MTS, Queens and Hamilton MTS, Brooklyn) and the Sims Recycling facility in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. An engineer was selected for the design and construction of the Gansevoort Recycling Center, which will also eventually house an education center.

Also notable is the inclusion of a Solid Waste section in the city’s relaunched PlaNYC sustainability blueprint, which was released in April. The plan outlines ten initiatives to reduce waste and lessen NYC’s solid waste footprint. Solid waste was barely mentioned in the original, 2007 PlaNYC.

Progress has been frustratingly slow. Considering the landmark Solid Waste Management Plan was an effort that took 20 years of advocacy and political will, NYC garbage relief has been an issue for a quarter of a century. Garbage is produced everywhere in the city, and it’s long past time to embrace a more equitable waste management system. Sunset Park, which hosts more than its fair share of transportation and garbage infrastructure, will soon host another one — the new Sims Recycling facility. By contrast, it’s hard to look at the stall tactics taking place on Manhattan’s West Side and see anything more than self-interest at the expense of others–exactly what the SWMP was created to overcome.

Project	Current Status	Future Timeline
North Shore MTS (Queens)	Construction began in Sept 2009	Original completion 2012; pushed back to mid-2013
Hamilton Ave MTS (Bklyn)	Construction began in May 2010	Expected completion mid-2013
91st Street MTS (Manhattan)	Funding in FY2012; construction permit on hold in litigation	Unknown pending litigation
Southwest MTS (Bklyn)	Funding in FY2012; construction permit on hold while 91st Str permit decided	Unknown pending litigation
West 59th Str MTS (Manhattan)	Design and begin refurbishment	2013
Gansevoort Recycling (Manhattan)	Design and begin construction; engineer selected	2013
Sims Municipal Recycling Facility (Bklyn)	Construction began in October 2010	2013

Better, Faster, Smarter: Off-Peak Deliveries in NYC

Steven Higashide — Fri, 06 May 2011 17:45:33 +0000

Off-peak deliveries can be done more quickly, saving time for carriers and businesses, and reducing street and sidewalk congestion for everyone.

A trial program to get NYC businesses to move truck deliveries to night and early morning hours has had promising results, as the city makes a bigger effort to tackle the issues of freight movement. Results from the experiment, which took place in 2009 and 2010, were published as part of the city’s 2010 Sustainable Streets Index, an annual scorecard of transportation metrics (TSTC and other advocates won the local law mandating that NYCDOT collect these indicators).

(Graph from NYCDOT's 2010 Sustainable Streets Index.)

The pilot project involved 25 businesses in Manhattan and eight trucking/delivery companies who volunteered to move deliveries between 10 pm and 8 am. Advantages included:

Delivery speeds within Manhattan were more than twice as fast than they were between 10 am and 10 pm, and 50% faster than between 8-10 am.
No parking fines were reported during the pilot, compared to “frequent costs of about $1,000 per month per truck” in typical operation, according to the Index.
Drivers overwhelmingly supported off-peak deliveries, citing lower traffic and stress.
Freight carriers said off-peak deliveries allowed them to maintain a smaller fleet because of the more balanced night/day schedule.
Restaurants said the program improved worker productivity because staff no longer had to wait around for delayed food deliveries.

According to the Index, at least two of the 25 businesses have continued to stick with off-hours delivery since the program ended. If that 8% success rate could be scaled up to all of Manhattan, it’d make quite a dent in congestion. The city is looking to start a new, larger pilot program.

Reducing congestion caused by trucks was identified as a key initiative in the April relaunch of PlaNYC, the city’s environmental sustainability blueprint to reduce carbon emissions and absorb a million new residents by 2030. Other strategies to cut truck traffic and reduce its impacts on neighborhoods include the city’s ongoing studies of the Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx and citywide food distribution patterns; efforts to improve rail capacity to Hunts Point in the Bronx and the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal; and installing paid commercial parking in busy loading zones to increase turnover.

Graphics: Via NYCDOT 2010 Sustainable Streets Index.

FREIGHT Act of 2010 Could Offer Truck Traffic Relief

Ya-Ting Liu — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:13:54 +0000

Last week Senators Lautenberg (D-NJ), Murray (D-WA) and Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the country’s first comprehensive freight bill that would fill the current policy vacuum surrounding federal investment in freight and port transportation projects.

Freight Act of 2010 would establish a first ever national multimodal freight plan.

The “Focusing Resources, Economic Investment, and Guidance to Help Transportation (FREIGHT) Act of 2010” would do the following:

direct the federal government to create and implement a national freight plan;
establish benchmarks and performance measures for greenhouse gas reductions and air, water and noise pollution impacts on surrounding communities;
create a new Office of Freight Planning and Development within the Department of Transportation (DOT) that would coordinate efforts to improve the efficiency and operation of all modes of the national freight transportation system.

Currently there is no freight policy, program or dedicated transportation money at the federal level that can help states, regions or ports improve operations at ports, intermodal facilities and freight corridors. Existing funding formulas leave very little money for rail or other non-highway solutions to alleviate freight congestion, so when a state or port wants to improve efficiency and reduce delays, they’re often left with highway building as the only option. There is also no accountability to make sure port spending actually results in decreased congestion, increased efficiency of freight movement, or reductions in air, water and noise pollution in surrounding communities.

The new bill lays out specific goals for federal freight spending and creates a new competitive grant program that would reward freight specific infrastructure projects that achieve the following:

Reduce delays of goods and commodities entering into and out of intermodal connectors that serve international points of entry on an annual basis.
Increase travel time reliability on major freight corridors that connect major population centers with freight generators and international gateways on an annual basis.
Reduce by 10 percent the number of freight transportation-related fatalities by 2015.
Reduce national freight transportation-related carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent by 2030.
Reduce freight transportation-related air, water, and noise pollution and impacts on ecosystems and communities on an annual basis.

While comprehensive in policy, the new freight bill does not specify funding levels needed to establish a national freight program or competitive grant program dedicated to freight infrastructure projects. Freight and railroad trade groups, Environmental Defense Fund and Transportation for America have praised the bill as “a major shift in national transportation policy to support economic growth with targeted investment in efficient, clean, multimodal infrastructure for the movement of goods.”

The FREIGHT Act of 2010 is headed to the Senate Commerce Committee for “mark-up”, then next to the Senate Finance Committee where members appropriate funding to the bill. Whatever the final dollar amount, one thing is clear – freight is a critical component to advancing balanced and sustainable 21st century transportation network.

Image: Frank H. Colon/The Star-Ledger

New York Gets Its High-Speed Rail Plan Back on Track

Renata Silberblatt — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:01:23 +0000

The bulk of New York's high-speed rail funds will be used for improvements on the Empire Corridor (in red), which connects Buffalo with other upstate population centers and New York City. (Click to view more details.)

In April, New York’s plan for high-speed rail through upstate appeared in jeopardy after the state’s high-speed rail project manager abruptly quit, reportedly because state officials had misled the public about key aspects of the plan. But NYSDOT and the federal government seem to have righted the ship. New York recently received the first $1 million of its $151 million in promised federal rail funding, allowing it to begin study of improvements to the Empire Corridor between Albany and New York City.

Last month, NYSDOT named a new project manager, and Gov. Paterson announced that the freight company CSX, the state, and federal railroad administrators had reached two agreements that will allow the project to move forward. Most of the corridor is owned by CSX and currently used by CSX and Amtrak.

The first, “framework” agreement addresses the “core principles that will guide” the state and CSX, with the second agreement enabling NYSDOT to begin an environmental impact statement for the Empire Corridor, according to the release. The “framework” agreement mandates that for trains to travel over 90 miles per hour in this corridor, there must be at least a 30-foot separation between the CSX-owned tracks and the new tracks built by the state. If tracks are not separated by 30 feet, the speed of the trains would have to be lowered. New York is seeking to run 110-mph service.

It was a dispute over the need for this separation that prompted the state’s original high-speed rail project manager, Ann Purdue, to quit in April. After the disagreement remained unresolved for weeks, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood appointed Federal Railroad Administration Deputy Administrator Karen Rae, formerly a top administrator with NYSDOT, to work with NYSDOT and CSX. Not long after, NYSDOT hired a new project manager, Marie Corrado, and the three parties announced their agreement.

While elected leaders including Governor Paterson and Rep. Louise Slaughter praised these latest agreements, Sen. Charles Schumer made clear his apprehension, telling the Times Union that “It’s a good thing that the parties are talking, but there are still many questions left unanswered.” Indeed, these agreements are no assurance that the project will be implemented after the environmental study is completed, which is expected to be 2012.

Gov. Christie Champions Green Freight

Kate Slevin — Tue, 18 May 2010 19:59:31 +0000

A new barge-to-rail facility would be built in an industrial section of Jersey City.

After Governor Christie publicly called on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to build a barge-to-rail facility at Greenville Yard in Jersey City yesterday, the agency’s board of directors approved the move at their monthly meeting today. Christie says the proposal will eliminate 1,000 truck trips a day, reducing congestion, air pollution, and road maintenance costs.

The new yard could be a key cog in New York City’s plans to move its municipal waste by rail and barge instead of truck. Right now, much of the city’s solid waste is still transported by trucks in “unsealed open-topped containers with fabric coverings” across the Hudson and to other states for processing, according to the Port Authority. The new facility would allow waste to be barged to Greenville Yard and transferred to freight trains.

The move was applauded by transportation and environmental groups on both sides of the Hudson River including New Jersey Environmental Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Tri-State issued a statement in support of the facility yesterday.

The project is part of a package of improvements to expand rail freight capacity across the Hudson River to be paid for by $100 million in federal funding secured by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NYC) in the last federal transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU.

Governor Christie says the rail yard could be completed by 2013.

Image: Google Maps via Jersey Journal.

TSTC Board Members in the News

Steven Higashide — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:49:21 +0000

TSTC board member Charles Komanoff at a bike rental shop in Guangzhou.

Tri-State Transportation Campaign board chair Rich Kassel, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, joined Port Authority executive director Chris Ward last week to announce a truck replacement plan that will help clear the air around the ports of Newark, Elizabeth, and New York City. Kassel was instrumental in drafting the plan, described in more detail at NRDC’s Switchboard blog, to require that all trucks doing business at the ports have cleaner 2004-model engines by next year, and 2007-model engines by 2017. Currently, many truckers own vehicles that are almost 30 years old, and switching to a 2004-model-year truck will cut soot by two-thirds and nitrogen oxides by over 50%, according to NRDC. Switching to a 2007-year truck will cut soot by 95% and nitrogen oxides by 75%. Truck drivers will receive grants and low-interest loans to help them make the switch.

Also last week, TSTC board member and environmental economist Charles Komanoff was in Guangzhou, China, to discuss congestion pricing. In a piece on the New York Times‘ Dot Earth blog, Komanoff tells blogger Andy Revkin that major transit investments in Guangzhou have only slowed a rise in traffic congestion as car ownership in the city soars. National officials convened an “International Symposium” on traffic management, hoping to find solutions for the congestion which is clogging urban centers across the country.

Komanoff’s takeaway for Chinese policymakers? “Congestion pricing [is] a virtually fail-safe tool,” but “politics leaves little room for error in designing the toll, choosing the tolling technology, and marketing the program.”

Image: Courtesy Charles Komanoff via Dot Earth.

OUTRAGEd Over Trucks in Brooklyn? Group Seeks Volunteers to Document Issue

Veronica Vanterpool — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:38 +0000

OUTRAGE has previously helped organize truck enforcement crackdowns.

OUTRAGE, a local group advocating to reduce community impacts of truck traffic in North Brooklyn, is organizing a survey to document truck traffic in Williamsburg and Greenpoint and needs volunteers. OUTRAGE, which stands for Organizations United for Trash Reduction And Garbage Equity, conducted a similar truck study in 2004 and collected data used to push NYC towards a more equitable Solid Waste Management Plan for the city. After years of stalling in Albany, the plan, which shifts waste transport from long-haul trucks to barges and rail, was able to move forward in June 2008.

Readers of MTR know that certain communities throughout the five boroughs, such as Williamsburg/Greenpoint, East Harlem, and the South Bronx, have been disproportionately affected by truck traffic and the air and noise pollution and safety concerns associated with it. MTR recently reported on the efforts of NYCDOT’s Office of Freight Mobility to mitigate truck traffic, after Brooklyn’s Community Board 1 (which represents Williamsburg and Greenpoint) called attention to a lack of progress since the release of the city’s 2006 truck study.

The surveys will be held over the next two weeks and provide an opportunity for local activists and residents to get involved in improving their communities. Additionally, there will be a community meeting tomorrow, October 20, from 7-8:30pm to discuss trucks in Williamsburg/Greenpoint and the upcoming surveys. For dates and times, and to contact OUTRAGE to participate in the survey, click here. For additional information on the meeting, click here.

Image: TSTC file photo, 2004.

Brooklyn Community Board Highlights Need for More Truck Management

Veronica Vanterpool — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:51:26 +0000

The Brooklyn communities of Greenpoint and Williamsburg deal with some of the worst truck traffic in New York City and are calling on Mayor Bloomberg to do more about it. Brooklyn Community Board 1 recently sent a letter to the Mayor asking him to improve truck traffic management and enforcement by directing “all city agencies” to work together to address truck impacts in the overburdened neighborhoods.

The letter cites a 2006 truck study first commissioned by NYCDOT in the late 1990s to examine ways of managing truck traffic and its impacts. CB1 says none of the report’s recommendations have landed on its streets.

A truck in Williamsburg.

MTR has been tracking the City’s efforts to deal with truck traffic and took a look back at the 2006 truck study to see if progress is being made on key areas. Here’s what’s changed since then:

Management: A key study recommendation was the creation of an Office of Freight Mobility, which NYCDOT did create in 2006. But the office currently has only two full-time employees, although they are not the only staffers dealing with truck issues at NYCDOT.

Regulatory and Policy issues: The study suggested the City explore opportunities for small commercial vehicles to travel on selected limited-access parkways. NYCDOT is doing so, studying whether it is feasible to provide access to the Henry Hudson Parkway, FDR, and Harlem River Drive.

Truck Routing: Signage improvements were a “significant recommendation” of the study as existing truck route signs are often unclear, designed and placed in an inconsistent manner. According to recent conversations, the Office is soon to start a truck sign pilot program in Hunts Point, The Bronx, to improve the “recognizabilty” of truck route signs. The intent is to see how standardizing signage placement and type affects truck driving behavior.

Improved enforcement: The Office of Freight Mobility has designed and distributed truck route pamphlets for NYPD officers, as the study recommended. Off-route truck summonses are now tracked in the NYPD’s reporting tool TrafficStat, but many other violations, like idling, are not.

Improved education and outreach: The study called for the creation of a “one-stop shop” for truck information in NYC, revisions to the city truck route map, and improved coordination with map companies. These recommendations have been implemented and the DOT launched a new truck webpage.

While these are positive steps to managing truck traffic, CB1′s letter indicates that they haven’t resulted in visible benefits for local residents. With more resources, the city could hire additional Freight Mobility staff, facilitating a more targeted approach to truck hotspots that includes police enforcement, better signal timing at problem intersections, and improved agency coordination. CB1 points out that nearly 40% of NYC’s trash comes through Greenpoint and Williamsburg, making it imperative that the Dept. of Sanitation be part of the solution. More resources could also allow the city to make headway on study recommendations that haven’t been implemented, such as nighttime local truck route restrictions.

Truck traffic may be declining, but deliveries will undoubtedly increase when the economy rebounds. With a more local approach, the city could provide disproportionately affected neighborhoods the “consistent, permanent, comprehensive response” that CB1 calls for.

Image: Google Street View.

NJ Expands Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit

Zoe Baldwin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:00:19 +0000

Parts of Newark are close to light rail but not commuter rail stations.

Last week, state legislators passed the New Jersey Economic Stimulus Act of 2009, an omnibus bill designed to stimulate private sector development and job growth while revitalizing urban hubs. Sponsored by Assembly Majority Leader Joe Roberts, A4048/S2299 expands the Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit by broadening the definition of a “transit hub” to include light rail stations and businesses that are located along and utilize rail freight lines, doubling the geographic radius for Camden, and lowering the minimum investment needed to qualify.

The expanded tax credit program will provide a 100% corporate business tax credit to companies planning capital projects that invest at least $50 million and create or relocate 250 jobs within a half-mile of a transit station, and within one mile in Camden.

Similarly, the bill creates an Economic Redevelopment and Growth Grant program to encourage redevelopment in transit villages, “centers of place,” and port and airport areas. It authorizes Newark and Elizabeth to impose a 5% rental car tax to fund local redevelopment activities.

Image: Newark Light Rail system map.