The House proposes painful cuts to transportation, but the Senate still has a chance to repair them now
April 12, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
 |
| Senate Appropriations Committee members list. Take action if you see your state listed.
Alabama – Richard Shelby |
Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Paul Ryan and the House released their budget for next year, and it proposed painful cuts to important transportation programs that our local communities depend on.
The TIGER grant program that rewards innovative local transportation projects, funding for new transit systems, passenger rail funding, and the office of sustainable communities that helps our towns and cities plan better for the future all were either slashed or eliminated.
Mr. Ryan and the House made it clear — making much needed transportation investments in our communities is not a priority to them.
But there’s a chance to make things better: Senate appropriators are writing their budget right now and they need to know that we’re counting on them to put together a better budget for transportation.
If you live in one of the states with a Senator on this powerful Appropriations Committee, can you take a minute to send them a short letter?
The small TIGER grant program has helped more than 130 communities build innovative transportation projects that are often ignored by the federal or state government — projects that improve freight rail, help give people more options to get around, fix broken bridges, or make walking or biking safer, just to name a few.
As we wait for the House to take action on the big multi-year transportation bill extended yet one more time until June, they still have to decide how much money to spend on transportation each year.
While it’s important to find ways to reduce spending, many of these important programs are being unfairly targeted by House members who are out of touch with what their constituents want and need from transportation: safe places to walk or bike, travel options that let us avoid pain at the pump, and bridges and roads that get repaired before we spend money on new things we can’t afford.
Yet the House is proposing to cut or eliminate the very programs that help do these things.
Help us defend them by writing your Senator today.
Young people leading the downward trend in driving, report finds
April 5, 2012By David Goldberg
A fascinating new report from U.S. PIRG, “Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People Are Driving Less and What It Means for Transportation Policy” examines a phenomenon many thought we’d never see: A drop in miles driven by those traditionally most eager to drive, young people recently eligible to drive. From the report:
From World War II until just a few years ago, the number of miles driven annually on America’s roads steadily increased. Then, at the turn of the century, something changed: Americans began driving less. By 2011, the average American was driving 6 percent fewer miles per year than in 2004.
The trend away from driving has been led by young people. From 2001 and 2009, the average annual number of vehicle-miles traveled by young people (16 to 34-year-olds) decreased from 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per capita – a drop of 23 percent. … Young people are driving less for a host of reasons – higher gas prices, new licensing laws, improvements in technology that support alternative transportation, and changes in Generation Y’s values and preferences – all factors that are likely to have an impact for years to come.
The report closes with a discussion of some of the implications for transportation policy — and funding — if the trends toward less driving-intensive lifestyles stays with this young cohort and those that follow.
Such a shift in future transportation trends would shake the foundations of transportation policy-making. For example, to meet the demand for alternative transportation, federal, state and local governments would need to prioritize investment in public transportation, bike lanes, sidewalks and other transportation alternatives. To meet the demand for walkable neighborhoods in close proximity to transit, government officials would need to ensure that land-use and transportation policies were aligned to support the development of these communities. To compensate for the declines in gas-tax revenues, decision-makers would need to find alternative sources of funding for road and bridge maintenance or boost the gasoline tax to levels that may further discourage driving.
It’s National Walking Day, but too many people will have to walk unsafe streets
April 4, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
You may not have known it — it’s not the most publicized special day on the books — but today is National Walking Day. Some of you may have traded part or all of your drive or transit trip today for a walk to work. But for many, every day is “walking day,” and it happens on streets with dangerous or inconvenient conditions that no one should have to endure just to walk to school, their job, or the grocery store.
Last Friday, I spent some time driving around the sprawling Atlanta, Georgia metroplex photographing some well-known trouble spots for pedestrian safety. Though some improvements have been made in places, there are still so many unsafe streets, corridors and intersections for pedestrians, finding streets that are “dangerous by design” is about as easy as blindly putting your finger down on a map.
The Atlanta Regional Commission has helped address some of these problems through their popular and oversubscribed Livable Centers Initiative that gives metro communities small grants to help make a dangerous street safer, improve MARTA access, add new crosswalks or streetscaping, or other small improvements to the built environment that help improve quality of life for residents. And T4 America partner PEDS has had their boots on the ground for years now, working hard to make metro Atlanta more walkable. But we need far more of these kinds of efforts — and similar efforts from others in cities across the country — to make the kinds of improvements we need to save lives and end the 4,000-plus deaths that happen to people walking each year.
Many of these deaths occur simply because the design of a road just hasn’t adapted to the changing needs of all the people who use it.
Consider: at one point, Old National Highway in South Fulton County was probably a sleepy state highway through a relatively unpopulated area on one’s way south out of Atlanta. Now, it’s teeming with retail on both sides of the street just south of Interstate 85. Add in the fact that it’s a relatively low-income area (read: people more likely to walk or take transit) with apartment complexes on both sides of the main highway and you’ve got a street that no longer meets the needs of everyone who uses it, and certainly not for the people who live there.
Though the first few miles away from Interstate 85 have sidewalks and there are a handful of signalized intersections with crosswalks, sidewalks soon end completely and there are many stretches where there are no safe places to cross for hundreds or thousands of feet — all in an area with MARTA bus stops on both sides of the highway. The sidewalks may end, but the walking doesn’t, as the “desire paths” through the grass indicate.
Of course, the most well-known road in Atlanta that’s dangerous for walking and biking is certainly Buford Highway. This stretch near Clairmont Road is a whopping 7 lanes across, with crosswalks often so far apart as to be merely dots on the horizon.
This corridor is lined with more affordable apartments and has also been a popular landing place for Latino and Asian immigrants for years, and many portions of the street are filled with small ethnic shops catering to the local clientele — many of whom are likely to be walking. According to the data in our map, in just the few miles from I-285 south down to 400, 20 pedestrians were killed from 1999-2009. There are stretches with no sidewalks on either side of the street and no safe crosswalks almost as far as the eye can see.
In this picture alone, not only are there no sidewalks but there are nine separate curb cuts where this man could be easily struck by a right-turning car before reaching the next safe crosswalk at the intersection.
Some key improvements have been made on Buford Highway in recent years, though, which have helped to increase safety. Thanks to recent efforts by Dekalb County and the Georgia Department of Transportation, a busy stretch of Buford Highway south of Doraville with high density of retail on both sides of the street received several new signalized intersections as well as new pedestrian-only mid-block crossings that use a special light called a HAWK signal. This is a light that stays dark until a pedestrian pushes a button, activating a light that flashes before turning red for cars. These crossings also include a refuge to shorten crossing distances and give people a safe place to wait while crossing.
And then there’s southern Cobb County, the northern Atlanta suburb where Raquel Nelson was walking when her son was killed and she found herself prosecuted after the fact. Some busy corridors have sidewalks and some don’t — though walking isn’t very pleasant next to seven lanes of traffic — and crosswalks can be interminably far apart.
This photo below bears some similarities to the conditions on the street where Raquel Nelson’s son A.J. was killed, which isn’t too far from here.
Note the bus stop on the other side of the street with a Cobb County bus approaching. See a marked crosswalk anywhere? Perhaps this man is trying to catch the bus? What happens when the bus drops you off and you need to reach a destination across the street? Should we really expect people to walk half a mile out of the frame to find a safer place to cross, and then walk half a mile back?
And some streets around here just have zero accommodation for pedestrians, including a busy street that serves two major universities and the county’s biggest employer (Dobbins AFB/Lockheed) right in the center of the county.
Keep in mind that these pictures represent just one busy American metropolis — there are hundreds more cities and thousands of places with similar conditions that need urgent attention. We have a long way to go to retrofit these streets to help make them safer for everyone that needs to use them. The complete streets provision in the Senate’s MAP-21 bill would be a step in the right direction, as would be the flexible funding that local governments can use to help address some of these dangerous areas under the Senate bill.
With 67 percent of all pedestrian fatalities happening on federal-aid roads — many of which that were designed in this unsafe way because of federal design guidelines and standards — there’s a clear role for the federal government to play in improving them.
So what would happen in our communities if we started by looking at our map of pedestrian fatalities to see where the worst trouble areas are and devoted a small slice of transportation money into small, tangible improvements like new sidewalks, new crosswalks, and new signals for making walking safer and more convenient? What if we made it a clear priority to make every day National Safe Walking Day?
Wouldn’t we be saving lives immediately? And for a small price?
Watch the full slideshow here, or click to watch full-size in a new window.
After extension vote, Transportation for America urges House leaders to get to work on a bipartisan bill
March 29, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
Transportation for America Director James Corless today issued the following statement in response to the House passage of a 90-day extension of the current federal transportation program and motor fuels tax:
“While we are disappointed that Congress was unable to pass a transportation bill before the end of the current extension, the action taken today in the U.S. House will at least prevent a disruption of the federal transportation program and ensure millions of Americans continue to work by building and repairing our roads, bridges, and transit systems.
We now urge House leaders to reach across the aisle to create a bipartisan measure that can find the broad support typical of past transportation bills, as well as the Senate’s current bill.”
Full T4 America summary of Senate bill
March 27, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
While the House considers whether or not to approve some sort of short-term extension or the House version of the Senate MAP-21 transportation bill, we’ve finalized this detailed summary of what’s contained in the Senate bill. It details most everything we know about the provisions in MAP-21, what the funding levels would be, and what significant policy changes would result from this two-year bill. It’s quite detailed and probably intended for the more policy-inclined among you out there.
Senate MAP-21 Summary (pdf)
Graphic: A closer look at the Senate MAP-21 vote by state
March 27, 2012By David Goldberg
As this map and graphic below amply demonstrates, the Senate’s transportation bill not only was developed with bipartisan input and adopted with votes from both parties, but it garnered support from every region of the country and from the reddest of “red” states — Georgia, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma — and the bluest of blue — California, New York — as well many others that trend purple. Click to enlarge.
This is a noteworthy accomplishment in this Congress, and one that House leaders should take note of before dismissing HR 14 out of hand. (HR 14 is identical to the Senate’s MAP-21, and is before the House right now.)
No one is saying the House shouldn’t debate its own amendments to the Senate bill. Indeed, there are several areas we would like to see strengthened. But with the clock ticking, construction machines idling and Americans looking to get to work, the Senate bill’s bipartisan provisions form a strong base for a House debate.
That was exactly the message contained in this bipartisan letter (pdf) sent to House leadership just this week by Rep. Dold (R-IL) and Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) and signed by Reps. Biggert (R-IL), Quigley (D-IL), Charles Bass (R-NH) and Larsen (D-WA).
“With funding for transportation and infrastructure projects expiring at the end of the week, it is critical that we act as soon as possible to provide certainty in the transportation and infrastructure sector that employs so many Americans,” said Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL-10). “I firmly believe transportation is a bipartisan priority that extends beyond partisan politics- that is why I am urging the House to consider the bipartisan Senate bill if it cannot bring a viable longer-term bill to the House floor by the March 31 expiration. We must reach a bipartisan consensus now to ensure that local transportation agencies can better plan for the future, and so that these important projects and jobs can continue.”
Would we, like the House members who signed this letter, prefer a longer bill, in an ideal world? Yes, if it had the right policies and an appropriate source of revenue.
However, with the time available, and in an election year where every vote is a litmus test, an attack ad waiting to happen or a political message of some kind, the Senate is offering a sound path forward that everyone should be able to live with now, and build from in the future.
Relatedly, we have completed a long and detailed summary of everything we know about the Senate’s MAP-21 bill, which you can download in its entirety here. (pdf)
Transportation for America urges House members to end delay and bring a stronger, bipartisan package to the floor for debate
March 23, 2012By David Goldberg
As of this morning, more than 100 House members had signed on as co-sponsors of HR 14, the House version of the Senate’s bipartisan transportation bill. Persuading the House to take up something like the Senate’s bipartisan measure, sooner rather than later, is probably the best chance we have that an actual authorization can be adopted during this election year.
For now, though, Speaker John Boehner has said he will not bring the Senate bill to the floor, as he had earlier vowed to do, but will instead seek a three-month extension beyond the March 31 deadline to continue to press for a GOP-only bill. (Pop quiz: If you were a college professor and the Speaker was in your office asking for a ninth extension on his term paper, would you a) give him just one more try; b) tell him to meet the existing deadline, or c) flunk him on the spot?)
In response to these developments, Transportation for America Director James Corless today issued this statement today:
“With the introduction of HR 14, the House now has a more solid, bipartisan bill to bring to the floor for debate before current authorization expires March 31. House leaders have indicated that they are seeking further delay in order to continue the pursuit of a partisan bill that stands little chance of ultimate passage. Refusing to compromise while stalling progress on authorization would do Americans a great disservice, introducing uncertainty just as workers are hoping to start construction season.
HR 14 provides an improved overall set of programs, and can be improved further with additional reforms that can win bipartisan support, provided House leaders bring it to the floor. House members deserve a chance to debate a robust bill and complete the authorization job, so Americans can get to theirs.”
Fixing the House bill: Cutting regulatory burdens and bureaucracy
March 15, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
There are many issues that need to be addressed in the House’s transportation bill, including two provisions that result in unneeded redundancy, bureaucracy and regulatory burdens for our country’s transit systems and freight movement.
 |
 |
The initial House bill proposed eliminating all dedicated funding for public transportation, ending a bipartisan agreement that’s been in place since 1982. Though the current rumor is that the House will restore that funding after massive opposition from across the country, other provisions are still in place that will cut funds from larger transit agencies, create unneeded bureaucracy, and also result in a fragmented system of moving freight.
Under H.R. 7, transit providers that operate both bus and rail services would be barred from a program used to buy buses or build bus facilities.
The ironic consequence, under a bill advertised as reducing streamlining bureaucracy, is that large transit agencies — rather than forego $900 million in aid — would be forced to split into separate rail and bus agencies.
Rep. Gerold Nadler, who represents part of New York City, pointed this out during the markup of the bill in the House Transportation Committee, a fact that no one quite seemed to realize up to that point. It wouldn’t prevent large transit agencies from getting these grants for bus service, it would just employ a host of lawyers, he said, as every large U.S. transit agency like New York’s MTA splits into two agencies.
This shortsighted provision means that tax dollars that should be providing much-needed transit services in local communities are diverted to bureaucratic overhead instead. Amendments offered by several members (numbered 17, 59 and 136) would reinstate current law and eliminate this provision.
H.R. 7 also would foster bureaucracy in freight planning, according to Leslie Blakey from the Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors, via a guest post at Transportation Issues Daily:
The new movement to relinquish federal responsibilities to states stands to fracture a comprehensive system of interconnectivity.
Our goods movement system is not confined to politically-designated state borders – rather, it is an expansive, holistic system that stretches from coast-to-coast and across international boundaries. Along our commerce system, bridges serve to connect states, single freight hubs provide service to several states in a 5-mile radius, and roads weave back-and-forth over state lines.
One key provision…encourages states to compose their own freight advisory committees and develop their own freight plans. Emphasis on the need for freight planning is a welcomed notion; however, planning for our national freight system must take place at the federal level.
So instead of having one national freight plan to keep goods flowing, H.R. 7 would create 50 different state freight advisory boards, with 50 state plans for freight movement. This fragmented, scattershot approach stands in stark contrast to the clear national focus for freight in the Senate bill.
Moving freight across the country is a national issue that needs a national plan, and if the House truly wants to streamline and cut unneeded bureaucracy, they should look closely at the national approach in MAP-21 and abandon their fragmented approach that would do neither.
—
With the House in recess and the Senate poised to pass a bipartisan transportation bill this week, we’ll be taking a longer look at a few other issues with the House transportation bill in the coming days — and how some of those issues can be fixed. Though they may have addressed one issue by restoring dedicated transit funding (reportedly, though not publicly confirmed), there are still other issues that need work to improve the bill and get a bipartisan majority of House members to support it.
Comparing the Senate and House transportation bills side-by-side
March 15, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
With the Senate having already approved their transportation bill and the House’s proposal languishing, we thought it might be useful to share this detailed analysis and side-by-side comparison of the two bills. We’ve included links to past blog posts and statements about the various provisions of the two bills so that you can have all related materials in one place.
A word of warning: this is for those that want to go a little deeper into the specific policies and differences between the two bills. It’s long and fairly wonky.
National Goals & Performance Measures
Senate: The Commerce Committee title establishes national transportation goals and performance measures. It requires states and metro areas to use performance measures in long-range planning and short-term programming processes. It explicitly covers key indicators such as congestion, road condition, reducing environmental impacts, improving the reliability of freight movement, increasing access to transit, and reducing traffic fatalities across all modes.
House: It contains no comprehensive national goals. It requires US DOT to establish a qualitative “national goal” but the intent is unclear. Requires states to establish performance measures for a broad set of target areas.
State of Good Repair
Senate: The Senate bill has strong repair provisions. 60% of the funds in the newly-consolidated highway program are required to be spent on repairing roads and bridges. (Click to enlarge this helpful chart at right — the new consolidated program is at the top right.) It also requires DOT to establish minimum condition levels for roads and bridges and includes penalties for states for not meeting them.
Repairing other non-National Highway System bridges are eligible under the flexible 40% pot of funding — the second blue box from the top on the graphic. States must establish targets for infrastructure condition. (Read this post from our blog for more about repair: A closer look at the Senate’s MAP-21: state of good repair.)
House: The House’s newly-consolidated highway program requires reporting on progress towards state of good repair by states but without similar fixed requirements for spending on repair. There are penalties if a State’s National Highway System or other bridges are very bad (10% of NHS bridge deck area structurally deficient or 15% of off-system bridges are structurally deficient).
Possible House amendment fix: Boswell 116 establishes minimum standards for National Highway System bridges and requires funds to be spent on bridge repair unless states meet those levels. Boswell 117 requires states with a significant number of federal-aid bridges to spend funds on repairing them.
Planning & Suballocation
Senate: Ties planning to performance-oriented goals and defines scenario planning. Divides metropolitan area planning organizations into tiers according to size. The amount of federal transportation funds given directly to metro areas is roughly equivalent to what they receive under current law, though the actual percentage has decreased.
House: Like the Senate bill, suballocated funds are roughly equivalent though the actual percentage has decreased. The above-mentioned penalties for not meeting minimum bridge requirements could reduce the funds available for metro areas. This bill also allows states (and the Governor) to override local planning decisions for projects on interstates. (See #3 in our list of top ten provisions being opposed in the House bill.)
Possible House amendment fix: Nadler 25 would restore the ability of metro regions to develop a transportation plan that meets their community needs without unilateral amendment by the Governor, addressing part of that #3 from our top ten list.
Public transportation & transit-oriented development
Senate: Continues dedicated funding for public transportation at traditional 20 percent share. Creates some new flexibility to spend federal funds on operations, i.e., keeping buses and trains running, not just buying new equipment. A new transit-oriented development planning program was incorporated into the bill via the Banking title.
House: Original bill ends 30 years of dedicated funding for public transit — read the letter we organized by more than 600 groups and individuals in opposition. Allows loans for transit-oriented development as an eligible expense under the TIFIA loan program. It doesn’t provide large transit operators with any flexibility to spend federal money on operating their transit systems. There’s also a provision to restrict any transit agency that operates a rail system from being eligible for grants that help build bus systems and bus facilities — resulting in unnecessary bureaucracy as large transit agencies split into two agencies to continue receiving those grants.
Read more about that provision in our recent post: Fixing the House Bill: cutting regulatory burdens and bureaucracy.
Possible House amendment fix: LaTourette/Carnahan 16 would allow all transit agencies to use a portion of their federal transit funding for operating expenses during times of economic crisis. (This amendment is similar to this bill the two representatives offered back in 2011.)
Walking and bicycling, local control of funds
Senate: Due in part to this amendment offered by Senators Cardin and Cochran and incorporated into the bill, MAP-21 consolidates programs for making biking and walking safer (as well as for other small local projects) and gives 50 percent of this consolidated program directly to metro areas. States and metro areas must create a competitive grant process to distribute that funding to local communities that apply. The Commerce Committee title also includes a new Complete Streets provision.
House: Eliminates most dedicated funding for bicycling & walking. Those uses remain “eligible” but without any dedicated funding for them. The bill also deletes numerous references throughout the bill that encourage multimodal projects. The bill retains the Recreational Trails program.
Possible House amendment fix: Petri-Blumenauer 103 creates consolidated program for bike/ped and other local projects and provides local governments access to new consolidated pot of funding.
Rural Issues
Senate: Ensures rural roads are properly considered for safety projects. Provides flexibility to invest in street networks. Consolidates rural and specialized transit programs to ensure that service is better coordinated.
House: Ensures rural roads are properly considered for safety projects. Consolidates rural and specialized transit programs.
Congestion and Air Quality
Senate: Retains the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program but with a new focus on PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5: diesel emissions). Air quality is not included in new statewide planning goals.
House: Moves CMAQ program into the Alternative Transit Account. Allows construction of single occupant vehicle projects with funds. (Read more about this provision in our blog post: Fixing the House bill: reducing air pollution by providing more travel options)
Possible House amendment fix: Ellison 97/Blumenauer 191 restores CMAQ program to original intent.
Workforce Development
Senate: Requires urban transit agencies to spend a portion of their funds on workforce development activities.
House: No new workforce development provisions.
Passenger Rail
Senate: Requires National, Regional and State comprehensive passenger and freight rail plans, including a Northeast corridor high speed rail plan. Includes Amtrak authorization language and adds eligibility for other high speed rail projects.
House: Includes Amtrak authorization language but with a 20-25% cut in operating funds for Amtrak. No high speed rail funding.
Freight
Senate: Establishes a new national freight program and new national freight strategic plan. Read more about the FREIGHT Act that was incorporated into MAP-21. Allows up to 10 percent of highway freight program and 5 percent of flexible Transportation Mobility Program funds to be spent on rail. States and regions must establish performance targets for freight movement.
House: No new freight program. Encourages States to form freight plans tied to achieving broad goals. Read more about the freight provisions in the second half of our recent post: Fixing the House Bill: cutting regulatory burdens and bureaucracy.
Bipartisan? Comparing the 2012 bills to past transportation bill votes
March 14, 2012By Stephen Lee Davis
Today’s 74-22 vote in favor of the Senate transportation bill was no anomaly, it was just one more in a long line of transportation bills approved by strong bipartisan majorities. All but one of the most recent transportation bills passed with votes over the 80 percent mark, and quite a few were well over 90 percent in favor.
All of these numbers make the inability for the House’s proposal to even come close to 50 percent approval ever more glaring. According to sources on the Hill, H.R. 7 was getting 180 votes or fewer in the “whip counts” by leadership to gauge support — far below even the minimum 218 that would represent a simple majority at just over 50 percent.
Check out this graphic below of votes on the transportation bills since 1987 and how they compare to this year’s effort in the House (and the Senate.)
The House should look closely at the path taken by the Senate to today’s approval of MAP-21: both parties working together, compromising where necessary, and making some common-sense reforms and producing a bill the majority can support. Thus far the House leadership has sought to write a bill that only the Republican majority can support, but even that strategy hasn’t netted total agreement within the GOP.
It’s time for the House to take another path. Either improve their bill and turn it into a bill that can win broad support, or take up this strong Senate bill that was crafted and approved by members of both parties.
-
- Transportation bill being finalized, window closing quickly! Call your rep and senator
May 23, 2012 - Saving a transit system and turning the tide for the future of a mid-sized city
May 15, 2012 - U.S. communities step up, hoping a strong federal commitment to infrastructure will follow
May 10, 2012 - Graphic: A closer look at the Senate MAP-21 vote by state
March 27, 2012 - Fixing the House bill: Cutting regulatory burdens and bureaucracy
March 15, 2012
- Transportation bill being finalized, window closing quickly! Call your rep and senator
Connect with T4 America
Interactive Features and Reports
T4 America on Twitter
