Skip to main content

Author Archives: Erika Young

Connecting Kansas City and the national economy with transit

During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, a panel of different stakeholders including the mayor of Kansas City spoke about the important national impacts that local transit investments have. While the mayor was in Washington, DC, Erika Young from Smart Growth America took a trip to Kansas City to see the local impacts of the KC Streetcar.

Cities, states, and the federal government all have a stake in building a stronger, more resilient economy. It’s in pursuit of that goal that local and federal governments have partnered, pooling resources to build public transit systems across the country. These buses, trains, and ferries help spur local investment, support high-paying jobs around the country, and provide the foundation for robust regional, state, and national economies. Localities invest their own dollars, often raised through local taxes, expecting a reliable federal partner. They do so because, without transit, our nation’s economy would suffer. Everyone—locals, states, and the federal government—need to be at the table investing, together, in these important transportation systems; one entity can’t go it alone.

That’s the case with Kansas City, MO. In recent years, the city created new a ‘Transportation Development District’ to raise local funds for a streetcar, and used additional federal and state funding to build it. Known as the KC Streetcar, the line has spurred hundreds of millions of dollars of investment while supporting manufacturing jobs across the country. Recently, Kansas City Mayor Sly James came to Washington, DC to talk about the value of federal transit investments and their national impact with a panel of other stakeholders—a regional chamber of commerce, transit manufacturer, and transit agency. While Mayor James was on Capitol Hill making the economic case for transit, Smart Growth America’s Director of Strategic Partnerships, Erika Young, visited Kansas City to see the local impact first hand.

On the ground in Kansas City, MO

Long before the trains started rolling down the street, the Kansas City made extensive changes to the area around the Streetcar. They selected the route, augmented zoning around the line to allow more development, implemented fees for surface parking lots, and removed parking requirements for new homes and businesses. A special tax district was also implemented to capture some of the increased sales and property values that would occur due to the line and provide an ongoing funding source (more on that in this podcast). The city also received federal grants to help round out the funding for the KC Streetcar. All this upfront work set the stage for what happened next.

A new hotel under construction along the KC Streetcar route. (Image: Staff)

Magic. While the streetcar has only been up and running for a little over two years, it has transformed downtown with new hotels, businesses, and residences. The streetcar and the mobility and connections it provides—as is often the case with quality transit—were enough to spur this new development. While hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested in new development along the line, as Erika learned, there’s even more construction planned. Surface parking lots are being transformed into economically productive places. Sixty percent of the riders on the streetcar ride it for work. This isn’t a fluke or an aberration. This streetcar and transit more broadly, is an important component to creating strong economies. While the local impacts of the streetcar are easy to see, the KC Streetcar has had national impacts on economies which are largely unseen, but no less important.

While Erika was on the ground in Kansas City (#SGAinKCMO), Kansas City’s mayor was back in Washington, DC talking about those economic impacts.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill…

Kansas City, MO Mayor Sly James joined a panel of business and transit professionals from around the country organized by Transportation for America to brief Congress members and their staff about the effects of federal transit investments. The panel included Alesha Washington from the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition; Don Makarius from Kiel North America (a manufacturer of seats for public transit); and Bill Van Meter, Assistant General Manager of Planning at the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD).

Even with their diverse backgrounds the panel spoke unanimously about the importance of federal funding that makes transit projects possible. Without a federal partner, public transit projects would stall, preventing cities and regions from realizing new private investments and affordable transportation options while starving transit manufacturers around the country of critical business opportunities.

Transportation for America’s Congressional briefing in the Capitol Building. (Image: Staff)

The Kansas City Streetcar, for example, received $37 million in federal grants. Mayor James, who championed the project throughout its planning and construction, emphasized that without a strong partnership with the federal government, Kansas City wouldn’t have achieved the level of success that it has seen along the streetcar route. The same is true for RTD in Denver where five of the past 11 major corridor projects in the area have received federal funding, according to panelist Bill Van Meter, who oversees project development at RTD.

The local and regional investments in public transit seen in Denver and Kansas City ripple outward to other cities and states through transit manufacturers like Kiel. Take RTD’s $678 million W light rail line, for which the agency received $308 million in federal New Starts funding, part of the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. As Van Meter explained, the agency spent almost $500 million on acquiring transit parts, materials, and supplies that were sourced from outside of Colorado. Businesses in 16 states produced everything from fiber optic cables to station furnishings.

For businesses that make parts for public transit systems, federal funding for transit projects ensures a regular, predictable stream of business that supports high-paying manufacturing jobs. At Kiel North America—headquartered in Elkhart, IN—almost 80 percent of their clients are public transit agencies receiving federal funding for their transit projects. Don Makarius, Kiel’s assistant chief operations officer, sees a clear connection between federal investment in transit and the long-term health of his business: “Without the federal funding that keeps cities’ public transit projects alive, we probably won’t be here long term.” The pipeline of transit projects in various stages of development awaiting federal grants includes approximately 50 projects in 19 states.

But the impact of the public transit supply chain goes beyond individual companies to affect entire regions. The Great Lakes region for example boasts more than 1,000 transit suppliers and manufacturers. “Strong federal investments in transportation are critical to economic success of the Great Lakes,” according to Alesha Washington from the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition (a group of chambers from eight states). National public transportation investments are a big part of how the Great Lakes region will continue to grow and thrive.

From left to right: John Robert Smith, Transportation for America (moderator); Kansas City Mayor Sly James; Alesha Washington, Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition; Don Makarius, Kiel North America; Bill Van Meter, RTD (Image: Staff)

Transit manufacturing businesses, the jobs they support, the local transit investments being made across the country, and the economies they contribute too, all feed back into our national story. A strong Kansas City economy contributes to strong regional and state economies which in turn contribute to the national economy. As Mayor James noted, “if the idea is to have a vital vibrant economy, we have to produce jobs that people can get to, and public transportation is vital to that process.”

While the Trump administration has proposed eliminating critical sources of federal transit funding—like the BUILD Grants program (formerly known as TIGER) and the CIG program—and dramatically cutting other programs, Congress has so far rejected those proposals. We join our panelists in thanking members of Congress who have supported these programs, and will continue working to ensure that the federal government remains a strong partner with states and local governments as we build more transit.

Leveling the playing field: How T4America uses benefit-cost analyses to support multi-modal transportation projects.


As with its predecessor (TIGER), the BUILD competitive grant program requires applicants to include a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for their project to be considered for an award from the now $1.5 billion program. This post explores what BCAs are, how can they help multi-modal transportation projects compete more effectively on their merits, and how Transportation for America’s (T4America) Technical Assistance program is helping applicants prepare a BCA that accounts for their smart growth principles.

T4America often supports great, locally driven transportation solutions through our Technical Assistance program, launched in 2015. We put our policy, program, and project development expertise to work at the federal, state, and local levels. To help show how T4America can help you make a merit-based case for your multimodal transportation project, we’re going to walk through a BCA we conducted on behalf of Oklahoma City’s transit agency last year.

Developing BCAs is just one of the services that our Technical Assistance team can provide. If you want to know how T4A can help you prepare a BCA for your BUILD project email us for more information.

What is a benefit-cost analysis?

A benefit-cost analysis is a formalized way of comparing a project’s costs against its benefits over a long period of time, typically 30 years for transportation projects.

USDOT requires applicants to include a BCA in all BUILD applications, the specifics of which have not generally changed over the nine rounds of competitively awarded funds, beyond small adjustments to factors like the value of time or the current administration’s removal of greenhouse gas emissions as a benefit.

Costs

BCA costs typically include any capital, operating, or major rehabilitation costs.

When T4Amercia worked with the Central Oklahoma Public Transportation Authority (COPTA) to compare the costs of their proposed nine-mile BRT system to the benefits for a TIGER application, T4Amercia started by looking at three types of costs: up-front capital costs of $20.9 million; the stream of operations & maintenance costs of $35.8 million, which included bus repairs, street repairs to the BRT lanes, and routine maintenance; and major rehabilitation and bus purchases of $4.8 million.

One important part of a BCA to highlight is the concept of residual value, especially for capital projects that have long life cycles exceeding the typical 30-year analysis period. Residual value is the monetary value of your project after the 30-year period has been exceeded and can be counted as a benefit. In the case of the Oklahoma City BRT project, we estimated its residual value to be $935,000.

After combining the costs and crediting back the residual value, we estimated the total cost of the Oklahoma City BRT project to be $60.6 million.

Benefits

One advancement in our understanding of how to level the playing field between traditional and multi-modal transportation projects has come through the BCA’s benefits section. For example, a transit project like Oklahoma City’s BRT can create benefits in several non-traditional yet measurable ways, both broadly and specific to this project.

Broadly, we can estimate that it reduces travel time for existing users of transit as well as for those who switch to transit from single-occupancy vehicles. There are also societal benefits from a reduction in pollutants (other than greenhouse gases) and improved roadway safety that can also be estimated and accounted for. In the case of Oklahoma City’s BRT project, much of the savings we identified are tied to people switching trips from single-occupancy vehicles to the BRT system. This includes factors like the estimated economic benefits of someone’s willingness to pay a fare, the perceived in-vehicle savings, reductions in fuel use and auto operating and maintenance costs. Additionally, we captured the benefit of avoided negative externalities like roadway wear and tear, emissions, and reductions in auto crashes, injuries, and fatalities associated with reduced auto usage.

Finally, each project will have highly specific benefits that reflect the unique nature of individual infrastructure projects. In the case of Oklahoma City’s BCA, substantial intersection safety improvements would be made as part of the construction of the BRT lanes, so we included them. By reducing fatalities and injuries from crashes at these intersections, the BRT project would add an additional $36 million in benefits.

Why your BCA matters

One reason that T4America continues to support the TIGER and now the BUILD program is that local communities are clamoring to build different kinds of transportation projects and the federal transportation programs aren’t set up to accommodate these new projects.

If we want to achieve today’s recipe for successful economic development, we need to think outside of the traditional federal funding siloes and build more places in which people want to live and work, and improve access to opportunity. That requires more investment in multimodal projects including transit, sidewalks, and other infrastructure that can improve safety for everyone.

Benefit-cost analyses are a valuable tool to quantify and evaluate the benefits that come from improved safety for people walking or biking, reduced emissions, and land development projects. BCAs help put transit and other multimodal projects on equal footing with auto-focused projects by demonstrating their value to public.

T4America can help you understand how a benefit-cost analysis would work for your project and can help you write one. If you’re interested in learning more about this and our other technical assistance offerings, you can contact us here.

Copy this tactic: Community Transit defends program by using unexpected voices

Last week, I visited with T4A’s members and partners in the Puget Sound region. In the time of “skinny budgets” and tenuous federal support for transit, it was encouraging to hear from local elected officials, advocates and transit agencies on how they’re progressing despite federal (and in their case state) uncertainty.

On the federal level, this region will be among the hardest hit if Congress declines to fund the capital improvement program, with more than $2 billion in federal New Starts investments at risk. These projects include:

  • $1.17 billion for the Lynnwood Link Extension
  • up to $720 million for the Federal Way Link Extension
  • $75 million for the Seattle Streetcar Center City Connector
  • $75 million for Tacoma Link Expansion
  • $43 million for Swift II BRT in Everett
  • $61 million for Madison Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit in Seattle

These numbers don’t include the threats to passenger rail service or to TIGER.

Rather than throw their hands up in frustration, Community Transit, a T4America member, is using this as an opportunity to tell the story about the economic and job benefits of their Swift bus rapid transit line. We are seeing more and more transit agencies talk not just about the direct benefits they provide to their community, but also the upstream jobs that are created…whether the buses they buy are manufactured in Everett, Washington or St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Community Transit’s Swift Green Line Infographic

Copy this tactic: Including suppliers and engaging your entire supply chain gives you the ability to reach other decision-makers that you may not otherwise have access to. It builds your advocate tent and adds unexpected voices to your issue.

For example, when Community Transit gives this powerful piece of information to one of their members of Congress, Rick Larsen, a Democrat…he can advocate to Tom Emmer, the Republican Member of Congress from St. Cloud. Additionally, their bus manufacturer can advocate to Rep. Emmer directly. This is just one way to show leaders how transportation is truly a bipartisan issue.

T4America continues to find stories like these to use in our work and highlight what’s working. If you have similar stories that you’d like to share with us, please send them our way. We want to know!

Copy this strategy: CUMTD wins TIGER grant, assisted by T4A Technical Assistance program

Champaign-Urbana’s leaders are clear on what they want for their future: a progressive environment with urban amenities while maintaining small city affordability. To achieve that vision, the region is pinning its future on the transformation of a few key corridors that connect the cities of Champaign and Urbana with the University of Illinois’ flagship campus in Champaign, IL. While this effort will consist of many projects over a number of years, Transportation for America Technical Assistance partnered with the lead agency to secure a substantial and important federal TIGER grant, jumpstarting the project.

Success and its challenges

Since the 1990’s, regional leaders have charted future development to be denser, greener, and provide more transportation options. Over that time, transit ridership has increased and more people are biking and walking. But the confluence of pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers can mean a chaotic atmosphere, especially during events or when school is in session. “There are a lot of conflicts between bikes, pedestrians, buses and cars,” said Dave Clark, City Engineer for the City of Champaign.

Heavy pedestrian traffic at the intersection of Wright and Armory Streets.

Heavy pedestrian traffic at the intersection of Wright and Armory Streets.

These conflicts can be dangerous and city planners realized that their solutions would need to take into account not just the safety of their residents and visitors, but also the livability and affordability of the region. “The streets really needed repair,” said Jane Sullivan, sustainability planner for the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (CUMTD) “but we didn’t just want to pave over them and leave the same problems.”

The solution

In order to achieve these multiple goals, CUMTD approached the cities of Champaign and Urbana to work collaboratively and transform the two-lane roads along the downtown corridor to complete streets that prioritize pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Ultimately, this became known as the Multimodal Corridor Enhancement (MCORE) project. MCORE consists of five individual street projects and centers on Wright Street, the street dividing Champaign and Urbana. This is where the hub of the campus transportation system meets Green Street, the heart of Campustown for the University of Illinois and its entertainment, shopping, and cultural center. As Dave Clark noted, the campus is “directly sandwiched between Champaign and Urbana’s respective downtowns and over 80% of the region’s jobs are located within a mile of the thoroughfare.”

The rendering of what Green Street will look like when completed.

The rendering of what Green Street will look like when completed.

Using a complete streets approach to accommodate all modes of travel (bus, pedestrian, bike and vehicles), each street will undergo either full reconstruction or major rehabilitation, transforming each into a multimodal corridor that better serves everyone who uses the street. In addition to the road improvements, other project benefits will be improved bus capacity and frequency on these key bus routes; improved sidewalks, new street lighting and the addition of on-street bicycle lanes.

 

Third time’s the charm

In order to make this ambitious project happen, CUMTD applied for USDOT’s highly competitive TIGER program twice before but, had struck out in both attempts. The third time, CUMTD turned to Transportation for America Consulting to help develop a strong grant application and organize support from Illinois’ congressional delegation — the latter of which was crucial for a successful application.

“It was very important that both cities & the university were involved in the application and able to commit time and funding”, said Sullivan, who also manages CUMTD’s grants. “We knew this wouldn’t work unless all partners were supportive and able to make the investment.” In 2014, with T4America Consulting’s help, the group of local agencies finally won a $15.7 million TIGER grant to rehabilitate and redesign these busy, crucial streets to safely accommodate all roadway users.

Partnership pays off

“This project is a great example of the municipalities, the CUMTD and the University working together to maximize their leverage to accomplish infrastructure needs for all,” said Michael DeLorenzo, associate chancellor for the University. “It is a true local partnership, with the assistance of our Congressional delegation, which has enabled us to get the resources necessary to make this possible.”

The project is expected to spur additional development and increase accessibility in some areas where transit-oriented development is already occurring. It will be easier and safer for people to get around whether they are on foot, bike, transit or driving. “Pedestrians and bicyclists and transit users will get to see and feel the experience of feeling safer and more comfortable” said Sullivan, “and I think even more people will be willing to walk, bike, and take transit.”

TIGER supports neglected local needs

The MCORE project is a great example of how direct federal investment to communities can incentivize local partnerships and fund smart, homegrown transportation projects to solve locally identified issues. White reinforces this:

“So often, federal dollars are spent on the bare minimum for highways and bridges, and aren’t spent on the projects that are closest to the people, the communities. The state DOT focuses on its own bridges & roads, different jurisdictions operate in their own silos, and then the systems in our cities are not integrated. The TIGER program smashes those silos, providing an incentive to collaborate and look at the most sustainable and effective solutions.”

“The TIGER model just works better,” White says, “because it demands cooperation and allows communities to focus on the solutions that work for them.” In Champaign-Urbana, collaboration through the TIGER-funded MCORE project will help all members of the community get around more safely, quickly, and conveniently, helping to bring local partners even closer together.

Transportation for America has long supported the federal TIGER program and continues to do so in this year’s appropriations process. This year, T4A—in partnership with over 170 elected officials and local, civic, and business leaders from 45 states—sent a powerful message to congressional appropriators that the competitive TIGER and New Starts programs are crucial to local economic prosperity and competitiveness. Of note, the letter urged Congress to include at least $500 million for TIGER transportation grants. Congressional appropriators listened, with the US Senate providing $525 million for TIGER and the US House providing $450 million in their respective FY2017 T-HUD bills.

If you are interested in how Transportation for America Technical Assistance can support you and your community in creating better, more livable communities; please contact Erika Young, Director of Strategic Partnerships at Erika.young@t4america.org.

Did you miss last week’s discussion on the 2016 TIGER grant program?

If you missed last week’s online discussion about this year’s $500 million TIGER grant program and the new $800 million FASTLANE freight grant program, catch up here with the full presentation and audio.

It was great — though not surprising — to see so much interest about how to prepare the best possible application. After all, these programs are among the very few ways for local communities to access federal funds directly for important projects.

For this that missed the session or were unable to attend, we wanted to provide the presentation and full audio of the session — with the full Q&A at the end.

We mentioned it during the session, but we want to make sure you also know about our expanded suite of technical assistance offerings, announced last week.

Transportation for America technical assistance

As Beth Osborne, the head of our technical assistance program, noted yesterday, we do offer assistance with TIGER applications through that service, offering advice, writing or review support to help give you the best possible chance to win funding. We’ve even written several applications in the past and can provide that service if you’re interested, so please get in touch with us directly or through the form at the bottom of that page.

T4America members thinking of applying for TIGER this year get a free hour of time from our team of TIGER experts. Not a member but interested in learning more about joining T4America? Contact Erika Young at erika.young@t4america.org.

And keep an eye out for more from us about TIGER in the months ahead. Congress will once again be deciding the future of this program beyond 2016 during the appropriations process that’s underway now, and you can help preserve it by weighing in with your legislators when the time is right.

What can other states learn from California’s shift to better measure how streets move people

In 2013, the State of California passed legislation that makes a dramatic change in how the state measures the performance of their streets. Rather than use the traditional level of service (LOS) measure that focuses far too narrowly on moving as many cars as fast as possible — regardless of the context or needs of a street — California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is shifting to an alternative of measuring vehicle-miles traveled (VMT).

In this first post of a six-post series only for T4America members, Transportation for America will walk through the change from LOS to VMT, highlight the opinions of a variety of leaders on this issue and discuss the implications for California’s transportation system and potential implications nationwide.

Reminder, moving away from level of service (LOS) was one of the key recommendations in our new state policy report, released in January 2016. Don't miss that helpful resource.

Note: moving away from level of service (LOS) was one of the key recommendations detailed in our new state policy report, released in January 2016. Don’t miss that helpful resource.

In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 743, eliminating the use of LOS for projects within designated transit priority areas (TPAs). As Streetsblog LA reported in 2013, SB 743 was a compromise between interests who wanted the full elimination of LOS in California and advocates pushing for the full and immediate elimination of LOS as a requirement for any project. But, because most urban areas fall within the state-defined parameters of a TPA, the enactment of SB 743 means that LOS is largely eliminated for urban projects.

Additionally, SB 743 authorized Governor Brown to develop a new way of measuring traffic impacts of major projects statewide and based the new way on total VMT rather than intersection congestion. (1) This will change how development projects are analyzed and scored in traffic impact studies and thus the type of development projects that California supports.

What this means

In short, instead of measuring whether or not a proposed project will make it less convenient to drive, (CalTrans) will now measure whether or not a project contributes to other state goals, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation, preserving open spaces, and promoting diverse land uses and infill development. (2) It is expected that this change will make it easier to build transit projects, as well as bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.

But perhaps a larger change will be the type of development the law now encourages. Instead of encouraging sprawl that goes against California’s own environmental goals, these new guidelines will encourage development that moves California to a more sustainable transportation system. (3)

Status of Draft Guidelines

In August 2014, OPR released draft guidelines proposing to substitute VMT for the LOS metric (as authorized by SB 743). Under the draft guidelines, California no longer considers bad LOS a problem that needs fixing under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (4)

On January 20th 2016, OPR released the final draft of the changes to CEQA. The January 20th release signals the 45-day initial public comment period before finalizing the proposal and submitting to the California Natural Resources Agency to begin the formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act. The regulations are anticipated to be effective statewide in 2019. (5)

Final Guidelines

The final guidelines are very similar to the draft guidelines with only slight changes. In the final proposal, OPR continues to recommend replacing LOS with VMT as the primary metric for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts, including the presumption that projects near transit (1/2 mile or less) should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact and that transportation projects which add lane miles may result in induced vehicle travel. (6) In a big win for smart growth advocates, the guidelines emphasize that effects on automobile delay do not constitute a significant environmental impact. (7)

The new guidelines would remain optional for a two-year period following adoption, but would apply statewide to all development projects by 2019. (8)

Draft Guideline Rules on Impact Analysis

The final guidelines contain significant changes on the types of triggers needed to spur an environmental impact statement. Divided into three categories; land use projects, residential projects and office projects, all triggers are established at below a commonly accepted baseline level. The new proposal attempts to streamline the implemention of SB 743, with recommendations regarding significance thresholds, for required traffic analyses of development projects. (9)

These new threshold guidelines mean that development projects that will significantly increase the amount of automobile traffic that will be required to undergo rigorous environmental impact statements to ensure that they are compliant with California’s statewide greenhouse gas law.

Citations:

  1. Newton, D. and Curry, M. (2014, August 7th). California Has Officially Ditched Car-Centric ‘Level of Service’. LA Streetsblog. Retrieved February 1st from /http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/07/california-has-officially-ditched-car-centric-level-of-service/
  2. Newton, D. (2016, January 22nd). State Releases Proposed Rules That Would Finally End LOS in Enviro. Law. Streetsblog California. Retrieved February 1st from http://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/01/22/state-releases-proposed-rules-that-would-finally-end-los-in-environmental-law/
  3. Ibid 2
  4. Ibid 2
  5. Ibid 3
  6. Lathom and Watkins LLP. (2016, January 26th). California Governor’s Office Releases Updated CEQA Guidelines Proposal on SB 743 Implementation. Retreived 2016/2/01 from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b070fa40-a4ff-4ce1-a6db-f2bd104cce31
  7. Ibid 5
  8. Ibid 5
  9. Ibid 5

ICYMI: US DOT’s Smart City Challenge kicks off; T4A breaks it down for members

On December 7, 2015, US DOT launched their new opportunity, the Smart City Challenge. This new grant opportunity is a competition intended primarily for mid-size cities, but cities of all sizes may apply. The program is a 3-year program designed to

  • Encourage cities to put forward their best and most creative ideas for innovation and addressing challenges they face, and
  • Address how emerging transportation data, technologies, and applications can be integrated with existing systems, and how these ITS technologies and approaches reduce, congestions, safety for travelers, protect the environment, respond to climate change, connect underserved communities and support economic vitality.

The Smart City Challenge has two phases:

Phase 1 supports concept development and planning activities and requires a 30-page application. Each of the 5 finalist cities selected will receive $100,000 to help them with their final application.

Phase 2 supports the implementation of the finalist city’s proposed demonstration. The winner of this phase will receive $50 million to implement their winning plan.

Critical Deadlines:

February 4, 2016 @ 3PM – First-round application due through grants.gov

March 2016 – 5 Smart City Challenge finalists announced and USDOT solicits applications from the finalists for Smart City Challenge implementation application

May 2016 – Second-round applications due from finalists

June 2016 – Smart City Challenge implementation awardee announced

What is US DOT looking for when selecting cities for the Smart City Challenge?

US DOT is looking for cities with a municipal population of between 200,000 and 850,000, based on the current US Census; has the density of a typical urban population; and, represents a significant proportion of its regional population (more than 15%).  In addition, US DOT is looking for an environment conducive to the demonstration of advanced technologies (including a commitment to making data open), a commitment to integrating transportation services with the sharing economy, and has an existing public transportation system.

US DOT’s highest priority with respect to technology elements includes urban automation; connected vehicles; and intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure. The Second level priority includes innovative approaches to urban transportation elements, urban analytics, user-focused mobility services, urban delivery/logistics, strategic business, models/partnering, smart grid, roadway electrification & EVs, and connected citizens. Finally are the Smart City elements. These include architect and standards, smart land use, low cost, efficient secure and resilient ICT.

US DOT will evaluate applications based on the following technical merit criteria, which are also contained in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO):

  • Degree that the proposed city and demonstration site align with the USDOT’s Desired Characteristics, relevant to: (i) population size, (ii) population density, (iii) population share of urbanized area; (iv) an existing public transportation system, (v) environment conducive to demonstrating proposed strategies; and (vi) continuity of committed leadership and capacity to carry out the demonstration throughout the period of performance, (vii) commitment to integrating with the sharing economy; and (viii) commitment to making open, machine-readable data accessible, discoverable and usable by the public to fuel entrepreneurship and innovation.
  • Demonstration of a sound, innovative, integrated, and holistic vision of the applicant’s Smart City program consistent with the USDOT’s goals and twelve vision elements as defined in Section A.
  • Extent that the applicant’s vision and goals address issues identified in Beyond Traffic 2045.
  • Likelihood of success in implementing the demonstration, including commitment from public and private sectors, and technical capability to perform.
  • The Government will then select the estimated five applications that are considered the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation of technical merit.

US DOT will conduct several outreach sessions to inform interested parties about the Smart City Challenge, they include an in-person forum on 12/15/15 @ USDOT, as well as several webcasts on specific aspects of the competition.

Day 1 Wrap Up: Congressional Conference Committee Action

This morning the conference committee for the surface transportation authorization bill met for the first time. The first order of business was appointing Representative Bill Shuster (R-PA) – chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee – as the conference chair and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) – chair of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee -as the vice-chair.

Possibly the most revealing item covered during this first official meeting was an early statement from Chairman Shuster (R-PA) that the conference plans to work diligently through the Thanksgiving recess that starts this Thursday, November 19th, to meet a self-imposed deadline of Monday, November 30. The proposed timeline will allow the House and Senate to vote on final passage for the conference agreement before MAP-21 expires on Friday, December 4th (MAP-21 expires this Friday, November 20th, but the House has already passed a bill to extend the authorization to December 4 and the Senate is expected to follow suit today or tomorrow).

There are still a few sticking points that need to be resolved and came up today during each conferee’s opportunity to speak today. Many hold differing positions on the low funding levels for this authorization as well as the non-transportation generated revenue used to pay for the bill. Those in the Northeast took issue with a House provision to remove transit funding dedicated to high-growth states in the northeast and place it in a national competitive bus and bus facilities program. And others, while not objecting to including passenger rail authorization in the surface authorization for the first time ever as expected by this bill, wanted to include greater reform at Amtrak.
We do not expect any further public meetings until the Members of Congress return on November 30, at which time the conference is expected to have finalized this bill. This means that much of the work on the conference report will happen out of view and behind closed doors. If interested, we advise that you contact your member over the Thanksgiving recess and visit them in person if you can about items of importance for you and your community.
Senate Conference Members
Environment & Public Works Committee
Republicans
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Deb Fischer (R-NE) – also a Commerce Committee member
Democrats
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Commerce Committee
Republicans
John Thune (R-SD) – also a Finance Committee member
Democrats
Bill Nelson (D-FL) – also a Finance Committee member
Banking Committee
Democrats
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – also a Finance Committee member
Finance Committee
Republicans
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Democrats
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Other Conferees
Republicans
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Democrats
Dick Durbin (D-IL) – Democratic Whip
House Conference Members 
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee
Republicans
Bill Shuster (R-PA)
Reps. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN)
Sam Graves (R-MO)
Candice Miller (R-MI)
Rick Crawford (R-AR)
Lou Barletta (R-PA)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
Bob Gibbs (R-OH)
Jeff Denham (R-CA)
Reid Ribble (R-WI)
Scott Perry (R-PA)
Rob Woodall (R-GA)
John Katko (R-NY)
Brian Babin (R-TX)
Cresent Hardy (R-NV)
Garret Graves (R-LA)
John Mica (R-FL)
Barbara Comstock (R-VA)
 
Democrats 
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Corrine Brown (D-FL)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Rick Larsen (D-WA)
Michael Capuano (D-MA)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
 
Ways & Means Committee
Republicans
Kevin Brady (R-TX)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Democrats
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Energy & Commerce Committee
Republicans
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
Democrats
Frank Palone (D-NJ)
Financial Services Committee
Republicans
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Democrats
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Other Committees
Republicans
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Mike Rogers (R-AL)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Tom Marino (R-PA)
Darin LaHood (R-IL)
Glenn Thomson (R-PA)
Will Hurd (R-TX)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Democrats
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)
Gerry Connolly (D-VA)

House Committee passes a multi-year surface transportation bill

On October 23rd, the US House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee passed out of committee a long-term surface authorization. The bill, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (HR 3763), authorizes the federal surface transportation program for six years, and recommends flat line funding plus inflation over the life of the bill.

Transportation for America (T4A) published a summary of the bill (pre-mark-up) for members, click HERE to download it.

Ultimately, the big-four agreement – a bipartisan agreement determining which amendments would be allowed, accepted or rejected that exists between the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the full- and subcommittees – proved to hold firm during yesterday’s nearly six-hour meeting.

Of the 160 plus amendments offered during the mark-up by members of the committee, the Chairman agreed to only three:

  • adding tourism to state and MPO planning scopes,
  • exempting weight limits for emergency vehicles, and
  • including a performance metric on urban highway state of good repair.

Only two received votes and both failed by large margins. In return for assurances by Chairman Shuster (R-PA) that the Members’ concerns would be taken care of before the bill reaches the House floor, nearly all Members offered and withdrew their amendments.

Of importance, Representatives Davis (R-IL) and Titus (D-NV) offered an amendment to increase the amount of funding directed to metro regions by $9 billion over the life of the bill and improve the transparency and project selection process for regions under 200,000 in population. Download the Davis-Titus summary memo HERE.

Though Rep. Davis (R-IL) had the votes yesterday to pass this amendment, he offered and withdrew the amendment after it gained the largest number of bipartisan statements of support during the markup (those came from Reps. Davis, Titus, Frankel (D-FL), Edwards (D-MD), Rouzer (R-NC)).  Chairman Shuster signaled that he is open to working with the bipartisan group to make improvements to this area of the bill as it moves forward in the process.

There were also a number of non-controversial amendments included in the manager’s amendment prior to the start of the meeting. Notable amendments include:

  • Sires (D-NJ) and Costello (R-PA) – amends the planning section to encourage MPOS to develop congestion management plans that develop strategies and projects that improve transportation access during peak hour travel and would include employers and representatives of low-income households.
  • Curbelo (R-FL) and Titus (D-NV) – amends the safe streets language to encourage reporting on the development and implementation of safe streets at the state level.

Despite a number of statements of support from various organizations, T4A finds that this bill doesn’t meet the forward-looking federal policies needed to strengthen the economic and social prosperity of our nation’s communities. We will continue to work to ensure the House STRR Act and the Senate DRIVE Act move in our direction and I thank you for your support.

US Senate Transportation Authorization – T4A Update

The US Senate continues to debate the federal surface transportation bill this week, with a series of votes taken last night by the full Senate. Individual senators filed over 200 amendments and T4America continues to track the latest developments on those amendments. We have compiled a brief update on where things stand and provide information on three amendments that we know would spur innovation, access and local control. 

**It is rumored that another manager’s amendment package will be offered in the near future. T4A will update this information as needed.

Transportation Funding Timeline Update: Transportation funding expires this Friday and the House announced this morning that they intend to pass a 3-month extension to match the Senate’s; setting up a new October 29 transportation funding deadline.

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) introduced what is expected to be the first of potentially two or more manager’s amendment packages. Manager’s packages serve as legislative vehicles to modify a piece of legislation in committee or on the floor, wholesale. This first manager’s package makes a number of changes, including maintaining the historic 80/20 highway and transit funding split; increases funding for the FTA High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program by $100 million (paid for by cutting TIFIA and the Assistance for Major Projects by $50 million each) and requires 50% of the off-system bridge set-aside funding in the STP program to be used on bridges that are not on the federal-aid highway system.

Last Sunday, the Senate dispatched a couple of non-germane amendments, but voted to allow Senators to vote on whether or not to tie the Ex-Im Bank authorization to the highway authorization. Late last night, the Senate voted and approved that plan (64-39).

Under this new modified manager’s package, T4A believes that it is unlikely that few if any of the 200+ plus amendments filed by Senators will be considered or voted on. However, we do anticipate the introduction of a third manager’s amendment which will reflect additional changes. T4A continues to work to increase local control, innovation and access to jobs and opportunity through three primary amendments. They include the following:

  1. Wicker-Booker STP local control amendment (corresponding fact sheet by USCM on changes to metro level funding)
  2. Murray TIGER authorization amendment
  3. Donnelly Job Access planning amendment (search for S. Amdt 2434, 2435 and 2436; this one is messy, our apologies)

Update: 5 Issues to Watch (for more information, please refer to T4A’s Member post on 7/23/15):

Pay-fors – Since the last post on 7/23/15, a number of items have shifted. A few provisions, considered poison pills, were removed, including the $2.3 billion that came from denying those with felony warrants social security benefits and $1.7 billion that came from rescinding unused funds for TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund. These rescissions leave the authorization with $43.7 billion, all of which are generated outside of the traditional transportation-user fee system. The measure would provide enough additional HTF revenues to provide the first three years of highway and transit investment, but Congress would be required to raise additional resources before October 2018 to be able to fund the final three years of the DRIVE Act’s authorized spending.

Transit funding – Changes in the manager’s package increased the levels of transit funding to be 24% of the authorized levels overall and 24% of any new funding generated annually.

Freight –The DRIVE Act creates a robust freight planning process that directs states to examine efficient goods movement and identify projects needed to improve multimodal freight movement. However, despite instituting a multi-modal freight planning process, the new National Highway Freight Program would require 90% of the funding go to highway-only projects rather than to multimodal projects using a performance-based system. What impact will this have?

Take, for example, the non-highway freight needs in the State of California. Ten percent of California’s funding would be only $9.3 million in 2016, growing to $23 million in 2021. Comparitively, one multimodal project at the Port of Long Beach in California to remove a railroad bottleneck and build more on-dock rail capacity cost the Port $84 million. T4A views this policy as a missed opportunity and not consistent with T4A’s freight policy.

Overall, due to removal of the TARP Hardest Hit Fund, the bill’s overall investment levels needed to be reduced. Under the first manager’s package, the freight program was set to receive $1.5 billion in FY2016 growing to $2 billion in FY2018. The program would now receive $991.5 million in FY2016 and increase to 1.9 billion in Fy2018.

Passenger Rail – No changes to note from the last update on 7/23/15.

Assistance for Major Projects (AMP) – Funding decreased by $50 million per year to increase funds for FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program. AMP would now be authorized at $250 million in FY16 and rise to $400 million in FY2021.

*NEW* TIFIA – The initial manager’s package introduced early last week would cut TIFIA funding from $1 billion to $500 million per year. Removing the TARP Hardest Hit Fund and other payfors required additional cuts, which senate authorizers took out of the TIFIA program. Those cuts, plus the increase to the FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair program, result in an overall authorized funding level for TIFIA at just $300 million per year over the life of the bill.

Senate Passes Cloture; 5 Things We’re Watching

***Please note, at 10:00am T4A received McConnell’s substitute amendment, which means that a number of these items may have changed. We’ll keep you updated as it proceeds.**

Last night, the US Senate passed a procedural vote called cloture. Like a starting pistol in a race, this means that they can now start debating, amending and eventually pass a federal surface transportation bill out of the Senate. While many things can, and will, happen over the next few days, there are a number of topics that Transportation for America is watching.

Want to know how your Senator voted on cloture? Click HERE.

1.Payfors – DC parlance for real and imaginary ways to pay for this bill.

At this time, there appears to be a wide-ranging list of payfors that run as small as $172 million up to $16 billion. Some of these include items like such as rescinding unused TARP funds or extending fees for TSA. There do not seem to be many that keep the traditional tie between users of the system and payments into the system.

The mass transit account appears to be running out of funding well before the highway trust fund. Initial T4A analysis seems to indicate that the legislation pulls in all 10 years of the proposed funding to pay for 3 years of the highway trust fund and 1.5 years of the mass transit account.

APTA transit run

APTA transit funding table in current Senate transportation legislation

The legislation also appears to sell 101 million barrels out of the 693.7 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between 2018 and 2025 to bring in $9B over 10 years. Critics of this funding scheme assert that we are selling the oil when prices are at record lows, making it a foolish idea. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) is reportedly one of those critics.

Originally, this legislation withheld Social Security payments from recipients that are subjects of a felony arrest warrant and for whom the state has given notice that they intend to pursue the warrant, raising $2.3 billion over 10 years. T4A has heard that Senate negotiators have removed this provision due to the advocacy of a number of social equity and civil rights groups.

2. Transit
T4A and the larger transportation community have several concerns about this title, the main ones are:

banking transit

US Banking Democrats chart on modal share under currently proposed Senate legislation

First, the DRIVE Act fails to provide public transportation with 20% of the new revenue dedicated to growth, which is a historical guarantee dating back to President Reagan’s agreement in 1982. Public transportation receives only 6% of the revenue derived from the future funding growth (see Senate Banking Democrats chart). U.S. DOT estimates that the Mass Transit Account ends the third year of the bill (FY 2018) with a negative balance of $180 million. Senator Boxer is reportedly negotiating a fix with Senate Republicans that will increase that percentage.

Second, projects with private funds get to “skip the line” for federal money, providing a major incentive for privatized service. The existence of a new expedited process could entice cities to pursue transit privatization on a large scale by using P3s to operate transit service. The labor community has expressed strong opposition and may oppose the entire bill if this provision isn’t removed.

Third, this legislation forces the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to wait 6 months before increasing oversight of at-risk projects. Sec. 21015 requires the FTA to wait for a project to fail 2 consecutive quarterly reviews before providing more oversight to a project that is going over budget or falling behind schedule.

3. The Freight program

This legislation includes all modes of freight, including pipelines for the first time. It also requires the establishment of a new multi-modal freight network within 1 year of enactment, the establishment of which appears to be similar to the creation of the existing freight network (as well as a re designation of the existing highway freight network). It does, however, define economic competitiveness by the amount of traffic moved and not economic outcomes and will fund projects that reduce congestion, improve reliability, boost productivity, improve safety or state of good repair, use advanced technology or protect the environment on the national highway freight network.

You’ll recall that T4A sent out an action alert to keep the TIGER program multimodal and not let the US Senate Commerce Committee use it for freight-exclusive purposes. We’re happy to report that effort was successful, though the TIGER program is still not authorized or funded in the transportation bill.

4. Passenger Rail
This legislation authorizes passenger rail funding for the first time ever in a federal surface transportation reauthorization. The legislation calls for $1.44B in 2016 and growing to $1.9B in 2019. It maintains a national system and provides for clear cost accounting among the 4 business lines of Amtrak of the corridor, state-supported and long-distance trains. Provides for up to 6 new passenger rail routes on a competitive basis and for the first time makes operational costs eligible for grants.

5. AMP – Assistance for Major Projects
This is a new project for highway or transit projects that cost at least $350M or 25% percent of state highway apportionment (10% in a rural state). Applications should be reviewed based on consistency with federal goals, improvement to the performance of the system, is consistent with the statewide plan, can’t be completed without federal help and will achieve one or more of the following:

  • generate national economic benefits outweigh cost,
  • reduce congestion,
  • improve the reliability of movement of people and freight, or
  • improve safety

Grants under AMP must be at least $50M, with a rural guarantee of 20%. Eligible applicants for AMP include states, local governments (or group of locals), tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, public authorities with transportation function and federal land management agencies. It is not yet clear if this language is specific enough to include MPOs.

Amendments to be offered: T4A staff is monitoring a number of potential amendments. One of which (offered by Senators Wicker (R-MS) and Booker (D-NJ)) would increase the ability of communities to fund projects through the Surface Transportation Program. We strongly urge you to call your Senator and tell them to co-sponsor that amendment.

ICYMI: T4A and SGA Host Federal Policy Webinar; Materials Inside

Yesterday, Smart Growth America and Transportation for America hosted a webinar to review congressional action on the federal surface transportation authorization. If you were able to attend, you will recall that we mentioned how the US Senate is poised to consider the authorization before the full Senate next Tuesday. That continues to be the current timeframe for Senate consideration.

webinar image

Access the webinar powerpoint here.

As a T4A member, you can access the webinar anytime through this page.

Two action items stemming from that conversation include:

  • It is highly likely that T4A will be issuing a number of action alerts next week. While we don’t have legislative language on a number of potential amendments, we anticipate movement on issues of local control, freight, TAP, transit funding and TIGER. Member support would be greatly appreciated.
  • The National Complete Streets Coalition is requesting support to tell FHWA to make more inclusive streets that are designed to be more livable. You can register your comments here: bit.ly/NHSdesign (this weblink is case-sensitive).

Boston’s Olympic bid aims to be the first where you don’t need a car

Three Massachusetts-based organizations recently published Putting Legacy First, a report that makes a series of recommendations intended to support the official 2024 Boston Olympics bid. Their smart recommendations focus on ensuring that the transportation investments made to support a walkable, transit-oriented Olympics and Paralympics will also be primed to serve the Bay Staters well for years to come.

The authors recognize the potential of transportation as a catalyst for short and long-term change. Improvements that the city and state officials can start on now will improve Boston immediately, like addressing the backlog of MBTA’s maintenance needs or focusing future development on creating more walkable, bikeable and livable neighborhoods in affected areas, will also go a long way to making a more widely supported bid. Additionally, by rallying around the challenge of being the first Olympic and Paralympic games that visitors can attend car-free, the authors pose a challenge to federal, state and local officials to think about transportation for the disabled and enabled populations equally.

“We’ve known for a long time that our transportation system – especially the MBTA – needed lots of maintenance and investment just like many transit systems throughout our country. This winter certainly proved it. The Games could provide the deadline that the Boston area may need to create a system Bostonians can be proud of, but it requires that the state, cities and towns, and the Olympic host committee work together to overcome the political and financial barriers that stand in the way of a world-class transportation system,” said Kristina Egan, director of Transportation for Massachusetts.

How do they propose to achieve this goal? Putting Legacy First has eight transportation recommendations, Putting Legacy First Covera few of which are summarized below:

  • The Olympics and Paralympics should serve as a catalyst to accelerate efforts to make the MBTA fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
  • Infrastructure improvements that are solely related to the Games should be financed entirely by private sources. Projects that generate shared benefits to the Games as well as long-term public benefits should be financed by a mix of public and private funds.
  • Since all the main venues are along the coast or Charles River, the report strongly suggests Olympic planners use the Games as an opportunity to build resilience to climate change, sea level rise and storm surges.

One concern expressed by the critics of the Boston 2024 bid is the fear that citizens will wind up paying for a large amount of new infrastructure while receiving few of the benefits. What they view as a current lack of public information and participation adds to this concern. In response, the report offers ways to mitigate those concerns by clearly defining public and private sector roles, as well as recommending that the Commission, “maximize public input and participation with a special focus on under-represented groups”.

“We have to put legacy first,” said Marc Draisen, executive director of MAPC, whose staff are the prime authors of the report. “It’s not just about writing a winning bid and making the Games a success; it’s about making sure our region ends up with more affordable homes, better jobs, beautiful parks, and a 21st century transportation system. These things won’t just happen by themselves. We have to leverage the Olympic bid to make them happen, and the sooner the better.”

While the International Olympic Committee will not announce the 2024 host city until 2017, many civic-minded groups are ready to fight for a blueprint that ensures their investments into such an opportunity benefit the greater Boston region and have lasting positive effects for decades to come.

Putting Legacy First was written and published jointly by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, Transportation for Massachusetts and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (a T4A member).

Exclusive Member Summary – 6/18/15 Senate Finance Highway Funding Hearing

June 18, 2015 — US Senate Finance Committee — “Dead End, No Turn Around, Danger Ahead: Challenges to the Future of Highway Funding”

Witnesses: 

Dr. Joseph Kile – Assisant Director for Microeconomic Studies Division, Congressional Budget Office

The Honorable Ray LaHood – Senior Policy Advisor, DLA Piper

Mr. Stephen Moore – Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

At this hearing, Chairman Hatch (R-UT) looked to explore every possible option to address the long-term fiscal challenges of the Highway Trust Fund. However, at the hearing he mentioned that he does not see any large-scale gas tax increase as politically possible. That said, Hatch pressed the need remove the “highway cliff” by finding funding to do a multi-year authorization.

Senator Carper (D-DE) called upon Senator Hatch to ensure no options like the gas tax are taken off the table, and referred to T4A analysis that showed state legislators who vote for a gas tax increase were not punished. Carper mentioned that at a minimum we should be able to index the gasoline and diesel tax and then come up with other creative sources to fund infrastructure.

Witness Stephen Moore with Heritage Foundation floated the idea of devolution, but the proposal was very unpopular for a majority of committee members and was shot down by former Secretary Ray LaHood as an irresponsible notion. Senators Thune (R-SD), Heller (R-NV) and Menendez (D-NJ) all voiced devolving the program. Transit came under attack for receiving gas tax dollars, but Senator Thune mentioned kicking transit out of the program is a political non-starter after it failed in the House during debate for MAP-21, and Senator Menendez and former Secretary Ray LaHood both stood up strongly for the need for more robust transit investment, not less.

Senator Thune (R-SD) mentioned that we should be treating general fund transfers as adding debt to an already debt-burdened country, since those funds ultimately do account for part of the deficit. He said it is time we stop the easy solution of general fund transfers and find a way pay for it. Senator Hatch agreed that long-term action is absolutely needed, and mentioned it will be difficult, but that the Committee will be working to look at all the different options to come up with a solution that stops the country from kicking the can down the road.

Exclusive Member Summary – 6/17/15 House Ways & Means Transportation Funding Hearing

June 17, 2015 — US House Ways & Means Committee — “Finding a Long-term Solution to Pay For America’s Roads and Bridges”

Witnesses:

Chad Shirley – Deputy Assistant Director, Microeconomic Studies Team, Congressional Budget Office

Robert Poole – Director of Transportation Policy and Searle Freedom Trust Transportation Fellow, Reason Foundation
Bill Graves – President and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Association

After more than two years without a hearing to discuss a long-term solution for surface transportation funding, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing titled, “Finding a Long-term Solution to Pay For America’s Roads and Bridges”. In his opening statements chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) mentioned the need to find a long-term solution, and said the Committee was “all ears” to all ideas out there except for one – the gas tax. He flatly stated “We are not raising gas taxes—plain and simple.” During the hearing, witness Bill Graves, former Governor of Kansas and President and CEO of the American Trucking Association mentioned the gas tax as the least expensive option for raising money and the lesser of the funding evils. Mr. Poole of the Reason

Chairman Ryan flatly stated “We are not raising gas taxes—plain and simple.” During the hearing, witness Bill Graves, former Governor of Kansas and President and CEO of the American Trucking Association mentioned the gas tax as the least expensive option for raising money and the lesser of the funding evils. Mr. Poole of the Reason Foundation, concurred in keeping with the user pays, user benefits principle. He mentioned the need to also consider vehicle-miles-traveled fees as a long-term funding solution, increasing use of private-public partnerships, and integrating electronic tolling into the transportation system.

Republicans and Democrats on the committee all noted the need for action, but there was hesitancy for most Republicans committee members to speak favorably about increasing the gas tax. Many Republicans committee members expressed the need for changes to the overall program through streamlining environmental reviews and reducing regulatory burdens to get a “bigger bang for the buck”, with a smaller share of them going further in saying they would like to eliminate the non-highway components of the Highway Trust Fund such as transit and bicycle and pedestrian projects.

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) and Rep. Bob Dold (R-IL) fired back at the caucus members by mentioning the importance of the mass transit account in reducing congestion on our nation’s highways and the economic value that it has on local communities. Bill Graves of the American Trucking Association also rejected this argument by mentioning, “We’ve come to appreciate there is a big, diverse transportation community. The reality is that our nation needs all types of options.” Another idea largely criticized was devolving the federal transportation responsibilities to the states, which Mr. Graves mentioned was completely counter to the needs that existed and would dismantle an important partnership between states and the federal government.

In the end, the members of the Ways & Means Committee found no clear consensus for any transportation funding mechanism. Many of the members of the committee expressed unwillingness towards greater tolling, gas taxes were seen as too much of a burden for some, and vehicle-miles-traveled received criticism by Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) for possible negative implications for rural Americans. Public-private partnerships and private activity bonds were both talked about positively, without any noticeable criticism, but both ideas offer little in the way of solving our transportation funding crisis. The committee clearly has their work cut out for them, but the first hearing will not be their last. Rep. Dave Reicher (R-WA) announced that his subcommittee will hold a hearing next week to explore opportunities to explore using repatriated foreign earnings for the transportation system.

 

US House Passes Transportation-HUD Appropriations on Razor-Thin Margin; 216-210

Late last night, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass their FY2016 Transportation-HUD with just 6 votes separating the bill from defeat. Just 3 Democrats voted for the bill’s passage — Rep. Ashford (D-NE), Rep. Cuellar (D-TX), and Rep. Graham (D-FL) — and 31 Republicans voted in opposition. The list of Republicans voting in opposition included centrists such as Rep. Dold (R-IL), Rep. King (R-NY), and Rep. Meehan (R-PA) and more conservative representatives such as Rep. Amash (R-MI), Ken McClintock (R-CO), and Rep. Massie (R-KY).  While the news is bad for TIGER, Amtrak and New Starts transit capital programs — which all received heavy cuts — we do not expect this bill in its current state to become law any time soon.

This final vote count is a sign of things to come.

The U.S. House and Senate Republicans are sticking to sequestration-level discretionary funding amounts for all of their FY2016 spending bills, established in the Budget Control Act of 2011. These spending caps limit funding for the regular appropriation bills in FY2016 to $1.016 trillion, a funding increase of just 0.29% over last year. We expect the House to continue to face uphill challenges in passing their bills and over in the Senate, with near, if not all-out opposition, from the Democrats expected for all 12 annual spending bills.

This issue will not likely resolve itself until the fall. Just yesterday, Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) rejected a call from Senate Democrats to hold a “budget summit” this month to resolve the differences between the two parties on top-line annual appropriations levels. Until this larger issue is resolved, we don’t expect the House Transportation-HUD bill that narrowly passed last night to become law any time soon.

Amendments that were considered last night prior to the bills passage include:

Rep. Denham (R-CA) – An amendment to prohibit funds from bill to be used for high-speed rail in California or for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. A similar amendment passed last year in the House by a vote of 227-186, but this amendment and others to restrict funding to the California high-speed rail project were not included in the final FY2015 transportation spending bill due to lack of support in the Senate

AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE

Rep. Bass (D-CA) – An amendment to make it easier for state and local transportation agencies to use local hire criteria for FTA procurement selection processes. A similar amendment was included in the final FY2015 transportation spending bill and USDOT is currently implementing this through a one-year pilot. Read our take on that original provision from earlier this year.

AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE

Rep Emmer (R-MN) – An amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being used to carry out projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian access on any FTA New Start (transit) projects.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 212-214 (Zero Democrats voted for the amendment — see roll call vote here)

Rep Meehan (R-PA) – An amendment to prohibit Amtrak from spending capital funds on projects other than the Northeast Corridor until Amtrak spends an amount equal to this year’s Northeast Corridor profits on Northeast Corridor capital construction. Amtrak’s profits from that line in FY2015 were $290 million.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 199-227 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Posey #1 (R-FL) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to take any actions related to financing a new passenger rail project that runs from Orlando to Miami through Indian River County, Florida. This amendment and Rep. Posey’s other two below were targeted at stopping and/or stalling the development of the private Florida East Coast Railway high-speed rail project.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 163-260 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Posey #2 (R-FL) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to authorize exempt facility bonds to finance passenger rail projects that are not reasonably expected to attain a maximum speed in excess of 150 mph.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 148-275 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Posey #3 (R-FL) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to make a loan in an amount that exceeds $600 million under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 134-287 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Sessions #1 (R-TX) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used by Amtrak to support the route with the highest loss, measured by contributions/(loss) per rider (would eliminate the “Sunset Limited” line from New Orleans to Los Angeles). Rep. Sessions has in the past made amendments similar to this and the following amendment.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 205-218 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Sessions #2 (R-TX) – An amendment to prohibit funds being used by Amtrak to operate any route whose operating costs exceed two times its revenues based on the National Railroad Passenger Corporation FY2014-2018 Five Year Plan from April 2014, targeting nearly all long-distance routes.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 186-237 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Blackburn (R-TN) – An amendment to reduce the overall appropriations for the Transportation-HUD bill by 1%.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 163-259 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Gosar (R-AZ) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to implement or enforce the rule entitled “Hazardous Materials for High-Hazard Flammable Trains”.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 136-286 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Lee (D-CA) – An amendment to strike provisions included in the spending bill that would prohibit USDOT from allowing flights or cruise ships to travel to Cuba.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 176-247 (see roll call vote here)

Why Transit Advocacy? T4A Member, Andrew Austin, Has The Answer

For many people, advocacy is in their blood. For a select few, organizing around transit accessibility is their life’s calling. Andrew Austin, policy director for Transportation Choices Coalition (a T4A member) was recently profiled by his university on what exactly it is about transit that has led him to make a career out of advocacy. This is a beautifully written piece and well worth the read. Congratulations Andrew!

“During my junior year, I witnessed people in Tacoma relying on buses to get to work, school, the doctor or just visit their families,” says Austin. “It really hit home that public transit access touches and impacts so many other critical issues.”

“Even now, nearly 10 years later and equipped with a few more tools, I feel like I’m the same young guy, figuring out how I can be an effective advocate and doing this work to the best of my ability.”

Read the full piece: http://www.plu.edu/resolute/spring-2015/transportation-advocacy/

And watch a video from the piece:

Transit in Tacoma with Andrew Austin from Pacific Lutheran University on Vimeo.