T4America Blog

The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Senate’s long-term transportation bill

Last month, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works passed a long-term transportation policy bill. Unfortunately, billions of new dollars for the existing system overshadow its notable new programs, like a climate title and Complete Streets requirements. 

Highway traffic in Seattle. Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr.

The transportation authorization bill, known as America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (ATIA), includes a few new, notable, programs related to Transportation for America (T4America) initiatives. But overall, it fails to meaningfully address the maintenance backlog, ensure safety, or create a system built around providing access to jobs and services. 

The new climate and safety programs, while welcome additions, will be undercut by substantial funding increases for high-speed roadways in the base formulas without any additional constraints to improve safety, measure or reduce vehicle miles traveled, and prioritize access to jobs and opportunities. 

The good: A pilot program for transportation accessibility data and Complete Streets requirements

We’ve long advocated for measuring the success of our transportation system based on whether it, and any new investment, improves connections to jobs and important destination by all modes of travel. After all, this should be the goal of transportation. 

That’s why we’re happy that the ATIA includes a provision based on the bipartisan COMMUTE Act. The “Accessibility Data Pilot Program” would establish a pilot program to provide states, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and rural MPOs with the data and training to improve transportation planning by measuring the level of access by multiple transportation modes to important destinations (such as  jobs, health and child care, education, affordable housing, food sources, and connections to transit, bicycling, and ADA compliant sidewalks). This is a small but necessary first step toward reorienting the federal transportation program toward connecting people to jobs and services.

The bill also includes significant new formula and discretionary safety programs and language encouraging states and planning organizations to adopt Complete Streets designs and plans, tactics that are proven to improve safety for all road users. Specifically, the ATIA requires that 2.5 percent of state and MPO planning funds must be used for adopting Complete Streets standards or policies or developing Complete Streets prioritization plans, active transportation plans, transit access plans, transit-oriented development plans, or regional intercity rail plans.

However, historically programs like these are funded at low levels while 10-20 times as much is made available for status quo transportation, and this makes it impossible for these programs to make a mark on the system.  We see the same thing happening here. 

The bad: No requirement to maintain roads 

“We must fix our crumbling infrastructure” is a Washington, DC cliche. But it wouldn’t be a cliche if we actually did it. The ATIA will not be the bill that requires state DOTs to take repair seriously. 

The bill does not include any requirements that the core formulas or new programs must be spent on maintenance instead of expansion. Its only maintenance program—the Competitive Bridge Investment Program—represents a small amount of the overall funding and does nothing to change the way the rest of the formula funds are used. In fact, one of the eligible uses of this maintenance program is to address increasing traffic; this means expanding and widening roads. Further, there is nothing in this program that rewards states for putting more of their other formula funds to maintenance. DOTs get the same amount of money even if they use the rest of their funds for expansion.

Granted, the bill makes funding from some of the new programs eligible for maintenance and limits funding to projects that do not create new single occupancy vehicle capacity. But the maintenance impact of these funds will be limited as they are also available for a variety of other investments. 

The only way to actually reduce our backlog of maintenance needs is to require that funds are spent on maintenance, not anything else, until DOTs make real progress in reducing their backlog. Maintenance is too important to let states and MPOs opt-out.  

T4A expects Congress to design the national transportation program to reduce the maintenance backlog by half in the next six years. We are tired of hearing the same calls for fixing our crumbling roads and bridges as justification for ever more funding before every reauthorization and not seeing substantial progress.

The ugly: Congress has—once again—stuck to the status quo

Redesigning our national transportation policy is a powerful opportunity that comes only once every five years. By choosing what grant programs to invest in, Congress can massively influence what transportation projects states, MPOs, and cities build for decades. 

And once again, Congress missed its window. Despite including a climate title for the first time ever—a huge feat for a Republican-led Senate—and a new safety incentive program, the ATIA puts the bulk of its funding into programs that incentivize the building of high-speed roads. This negates the funding for the climate and safety programs  because high-speed roads are dangerous by design and increase transportation emissions. Here’s how. 

Vehicles need a lot of space to reach high speeds. Building communities where vehicles can go fast means building destinations spread far apart from each other—the suburban sprawl that many Americans are intimately familiar with. In these sprawling built environments, using any transportation mode besides a personal car becomes incredibly inconvenient and deadly (our report Dangerous by Design found that almost 50,000 people were killed while walking and biking between 2008 and 2017, and that number is rising). Hence, high-speed roads are both dangerous for pedestrians and encourage driving and increase vehicle miles traveled—which increases greenhouse gas emissions. 

Governments at all levels use vehicle speeds as a poor proxy for measuring how connected people are to destinations, like jobs, schools, and grocery stores. But high vehicle speed doesn’t mean that people actually reached their destination in a reasonable time. Our current federal transportation program prioritizes funding a 90 mile commute at 60 mph rather than a five mile commute in stop-and-go traffic. But which commute would you rather have? 

By continuing to prioritize new high-speed roads, the ATIA doesn’t focus on the outcomes of its investments. It doesn’t prioritize connecting people to jobs and services. 

Finally, the bill perpetuates the false notion that highways are the most important transportation mode. In keeping with recent  history, Congress has advanced a major highway bill before either of the Congressional committees dealing with rail and transit have even begun to act. At $287 billion over five years, this bill assumes more than the lion’s share of available funding for highways.