Skip to main content

Senators hone in on 80/20 split, transit operations funding at Banking hearing

Last week, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing on investing in public transit in the next long-term transportation law. We were pleasantly surprised to see senators ask questions on funding transit and highways equally, transit operations, and rural transit. 

Credit: Kyle Anderson, WMATA

Public transportation usually gets shafted in the long-term surface transportation law—so much so that lawmakers tend to call it “the highway bill.” 

But not this year. Senators in the committee charged with writing the public transit portion of this law—up for reauthorization this September—surprised us at a recent hearing with questions that got to the heart of the policies keeping U.S. public transit behind. Many senators specifically asked our director Beth Osborne, who testified before the committee, about the 80/20 split between highway and transit funding, the value of funding transit operations, and rural transit needs. 

We’ve long criticized the Senate Banking Committee for shirking its duty to write the public transit portion of authorization by taking a backseat to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which writes the highway title. But this hearing might signal a change in tactic. Here’s what we heard that surprised us. 

The belly of the beast: the 80/20 split

Since 1982, spending from the federal Highway Trust Fund has followed this formula: 80 percent for highways, 20 percent for public transportation. The logic behind this was that since the Trust Fund’s funding came from the gas tax drivers pay at the pump, most of the funding should be spent on highways. 

Besides a groundbreaking resolution from Rep. Chuy García (that you can support here), this faulty logic hasn’t been challenged much since—even though subsequent legislation, particularly the three COVID-19 relief packages, didn’t adhere to this formula. Which is why we were surprised to hear Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) ask Beth right out of the gate how funding transit and highways equally would improve transit service. “We’ve never made the kind of investment in transit at the national level as we did for highways,” Beth said. “But this is what we need to do to give people multiple modes of travel.” 

Senator Menendez also noted that the federal transportation program subsidizes highways and bridges, so he doesn’t understand why transit is any different. 

Funding transit operations—not just maintenance and capital 

The only federal funding provided regularly to medium-sized and larger transit agencies is for maintenance or expansion projects—not the day-to-day costs of operating transit service. Transit agencies are on their own to raise this money, relying on a combination of fares, sales tax receipts, and other state level sources of support. 

The three COVID-19 relief packages broke this tradition by providing operating support to transit agencies, giving us hope that lawmakers would make this a permanent component of the long-term transportation law. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)  brought this idea to the committee by asking Beth about the value of federal operating support, even noting that investing in more frequent service will bring a return of more riders. 

“People can’t rely on transit that comes every 45 minutes to an hour,” Beth responded. “We need the reliability that high-frequency transit service brings, and not just at the times that white collar workers need transit.” And the only way there is through federal operating support for transit. 

An interest in rural transit 

Both Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and Tina Smith (D-MN) asked Beth about the types of investments needed to support public transit in rural areas, and how they might be different than investments in urban and suburban public transit. 

This is an important issue: we found in an analysis of American Community Survey data that the majority of counties with high rates of zero-car households are rural. In fact, more than one million households in predominantly rural counties do not have access to a vehicle, as we blogged last year. 

“When we think rural, we think wide open fields and farmlands. But we forget that there are concentrations of people who live in distinct towns, and that services they need—like hospitals and schools—are moving farther away, consolidating into centers that serve entire regions,” Beth responded. “We need transit that can connect people to those regional hubs.” 

Lack of bipartisanship 

Only one Republican member of the committee showed up to the hearing: Ranking Member Pat Toomey (PA-R), who spent his testimony criticizing the high amount of funding public transit received in the most recent COVID-19 relief package. 

The lack of bipartisan participation in the hearing is both good and bad. On the good side, transportation has typically been an issue that both Democrats and Republicans agree to undermine for the sake of bipartisanship, regularly passing long-term authorizations that maintain the status quo and make our transportation problems worse. Breaking from this tradition is necessary to pass an authorization that will actually maintain our infrastructure, improve safety, and connect people with jobs and services sustainably and equitably. 

Yet the lack of bipartisanship implies that these recommendations are partisan—when in reality, many of the changes to federal transportation policy needed would achieve both parties’ goals: improved economic competitiveness, access to jobs and services, sustainability and more. That’s why freshmen Democrat and Republican members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee supported many of Transportation for America’s recommendations in legislation passed by the House last summer. 

Turning needed reforms to the federal transportation program into a partisan issue will fail to deliver the transportation system Americans deserve and overwhelmingly support. We urge senators on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look at the current transportation program and ask themselves: is this working? 

Beth was “the belle of the transit ball”—but nothing is real until it’s law

It’s exciting to hear senators ask about policy proposals that would constitute a paradigm shift in U.S. transportation policy if enacted—which is why after the hearing, our chairman John Robert Smith called Beth “the belle of the transit ball.” 

But the Banking Committee hasn’t released any bill text yet, meaning that we can’t assume that ending the 80/20 split, funding transit operations, supporting rural transit and more will make it into the bill. Talk without action is meaningless. Yet we’re glad to see that there’s talk at all, especially after decades of the status quo. 

WATCH NOW: Going #BeyondEVs in three webinars, including one with Sec. Anthony Foxx

Electrifying vehicles is critical to reducing transportation emissions, but they can’t get the job done on their own—Americans need the freedom to drive less. In honor of Earth Day, we hosted three webinars diving into this issue, including one with former USDOT Secretary Anthony Foxx and Rep. Nikema Williams (GA-5). 

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions—and they’re going up. Yet electric vehicles (EVs) are not enough on their own to reduce these emissions due to the slow rate of fleet turnover and the increasing rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Americans are driving more and more every day, and policy can’t keep up. 

But Americans aren’t driving more by choice. Our transportation investment decisions make driving many people’s only option, forcing people to drive everywhere by prioritizing projects that make it easier to drive fast. This cuts off millions of Americans who can’t afford or operate a vehicle from reaching jobs, schools, and other essential services. 

To truly reduce transportation emissions and make transportation accessible for everyone—no matter who you are or where you live—we need to give Americans more options than just driving. We need to go #BeyondEVs.

Tuesday, 1:00 pm ET: Undoing the Damage of Urban Freeways

This two-part, joint panel event with Third Way examines the lasting impact of urban freeways and how our next infrastructure investments must be different.

Transportation investments shape our communities — not always for the better. For decades, transportation planners invested in urban freeways that destroyed many communities of color. Recently, the Department of Transportation halted a planned expansion of I-45 in Houston, a project that would have displaced not only families, homes, and businesses but historic Black and brown communities.

Changing the way we invest in transportation is part of how we’ll make the U.S. more equitable and sustainable. The new American Jobs Plan presents a once-in-a-century opportunity to do that — if we do it right. 

Check out our superstar lineup of speakers: 

  • Former US Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, Lyft’s Chief Policy Officer 
  • Josh Freed, Senior Vice President for the Climate and Energy Program, Third Way
  • Representative Nikema Williams (D-GA)
  • Mayor Ben Walsh, Syracuse, New York
  • Former Mayor John Norquist, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America
  • Tanya Snyder, Reporter, POLITICO
  • Molly Cook, Stop TxDOT I-45, Houston
  • Keith Baker, Executive Director of Reconnect Rondo, St. Paul
  • Amy Stelly, Claiborne Avenue Alliance, New Orleans
Watch the recording here!

Wednesday, 3:00 pm ET: Driving Down Emissions: Why reducing how much we drive is critical for our climate

The heart of our transportation climate strategy needs to hinge on making it easier, safer, and more convenient to take shorter routine trips and meet daily needs without a car, whether those vehicles are electric or not. We’ll never achieve our ambitious climate targets in time—or create more livable and equitable communities—if we don’t.

This webinar will draw from Smart Growth America’s 2020 report, Driving Down Emissions, and highlight new research and state action to reduce emissions from the transportation sector. Speakers will discuss why it’s so critical to reduce the need to drive in the US, how policy changes can get us there, and what steps California and Minnesota, two leading states, are taking to make it happen. 

Thursday, 1:00 pm ET: Transforming Transit: Fund transit at the same level as highways

Expanding public transportation is necessary to help give Americans more transportation options than just driving and building an equitable economy post-COVID-19. 

This webinar will unpack hurdles to a transformational investment in public transit embedded in existing federal transportation policy—notably the “handshake deal” limiting public transit to only 20 percent of the transportation budget. Our speakers will break down the consequences of this policy—something we’ve expanded upon here—and help chart a path forward. 

Angry about the 80/20 split between highway and transit funding? Send a message to your legislators!

Why Transportation for America joined an electric vehicle coalition

If you’ve been following Transportation for America for a while, you know that electric vehicles on their own aren’t enough to reduce emissions from the transportation sector—the largest source of U.S. emissions. That’s why we joined CHARGE, a new coalition of cross-industry stakeholders advocating for a holistic approach to electrifying the U.S. transportation network. 

A Washington, DC Metro platform. Credit: Kyle Anderson, WMATA

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions, and most of them come from driving. Electrifying cars would seem like a sure bet to reduce these emissions, but with the dramatic rate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is increasing coupled with the slow pace of vehicle fleet turnover (cars are lasting longer and longer!), there’s no way we can electrify cars fast enough to prevent devastating outcomes of climate change. 

And why would we want to? A transportation system where your only “option” is to drive everywhere—even to destinations less than a mile from your home—is far from equitable. Requiring that every working adult spend $10,000 per year on average on a car to participate in the economy isn’t good for our businesses, quality of life, or ensuring that everybody—regardless of your ability—can access the things they need. 

That’s why we joined CHARGE, a new coalition of 37 transportation, industry, environmental, labor, health, equity, and civic organizations that support smart policy to electrify America’s transportation system. With CHARGE, we created three policy principles and a set of concrete policy recommendations for Congress and the Biden administration to develop smart zero-emission transportation policy for the next stimulus or infrastructure package. 

The unique thing about CHARGE is that it’s the only “electric vehicle” coalition where public transit is a priority—the number one priority, in fact. CHARGE knows that electrifying vehicles is critical, but it isn’t enough to reduce our emissions: we need to give Americans more zero-emission transportation options by expanding and electrifying public transportation. 

Here are some of our concrete recommendations to expand and electrify transit: 

  • Creating a $20 billion annual operating support program to incentivize more and more frequent and expanded service, particularly for communities of color and low-income communities; 
  • Incentivizing transit agencies to develop and support equitable multimodal transit systems, operations and infrastructure; 
  • Significantly increasing funding and financing available to support conversion to, maintenance of, operation of, and workforce training to support electric fleets and related infrastructure as rapidly as possible while simultaneously increasing service. 

POLITICO Pro reported last week that $25 billion of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan (which analyzed in-depth here) will go to electrifying public transit vehicles, an early win for our new coalition. 

Also according to POLITICO Pro, two-thirds of the $85 billion for transit in the American Jobs Plan will go to maintenance, with the rest set for expansion and improving accessibility for people with disabilities. This is huge, but we definitely need ongoing, federal operating support for public transit in order to provide frequent, high-quality service necessary to reduce transportation emissions. 

We’re thrilled to team up with organizations across the transportation policy spectrum on recommendations to holistically electrify transportation—not just maintain the same car-dependent paradigm but with electric vehicles. We urge you to check out CHARGE’s principles and policy recommendations, and if you represent an organization, sign on to support these ideas! 

Minnesota takes important steps to drive down emissions

To address urgent climate needs, every state will need to make it possible for their residents to drive less every day. But too many shy away from taking concrete steps to do so, putting all of their efforts into improving fuel efficiency and electric vehicle adoption. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) just took a key step in the fight against climate change: setting an ambitious target for reducing driving (measured as vehicle miles traveled, or VMT). 

Riders on a bus in the Twin Cities of Minnesota, June 2020. Photo by Metro Transit.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) recently made a highly anticipated decision to adopt a number of recommendations from the state’s Sustainable Transportation Advisory Council (STAC) made in December 2020, including setting a preliminary statewide goal for a 20 percent VMT reduction statewide and per capita by 2050. For the average Minnesota driver, that will mean traveling about 45 miles less per week in 2050 than today. 

MnDOT’s VMT reduction target is preliminary, and will be finalized after engaging the public and stakeholders through the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan process that will occur throughout 2021. MnDOT may also set interim targets, as well as different targets for the Twin Cities region (which already has locally-established targets) compared to the rest of the state.

Minnesota has already had some success reducing emissions from the transportation sector in recent years, particularly compared to some of its peers, but setting VMT reduction goals has been a gap in the state’s efforts. We highlighted the need for VMT reduction targets with our partners at Move Minnesota in our Minnesota case study for our Driving Down Emissions report, as have local advocates and stakeholders, so it is great to see the state step out as a national leader working toward reducing the need to drive. 

This step is a big deal—most states are still heavily focused on improving fuel efficiency standards and electric vehicle adoption with little or no emphasis on how growing VMT is undercutting those efforts. This is shortsighted and leaves valuable strategies that would also create more livable and equitable communities on the table. 

Importantly, MnDOT also plans to develop an approach for estimating the VMT that will result from its program and proposed projects by assessing both induced demand from adding lanes and reduced demand from increasing walking access. MnDOT will also evaluate the accuracy of existing travel demand forecasting methods—an important step, since many traditional forecasting models have a poor track record of accuracy and can prompt premature or unnecessary highway expansions that induce more driving and more emissions. 

Minnesota isn’t the only state taking action this month to reduce emissions by reducing the need to drive. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA) recently released a public discussion draft of its plan to reduce VMT. The Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI), created in response to Governor Gavin Newsom’s executive order, will be finalized later this year. It includes 28 action items with a number of potential strategies aimed at reducing driving, including pricing, using state transportation funds to incentivize land use decisions that reduce the need to drive, and establishing VMT mitigation banks that allow transportation project sponsors to purchase VMT allowances if their project will induce more driving, creating a fund for VMT-reduction projects. 

California’s plan also includes strategies aimed at addressing the transportation system’s entrenched inequities, such as pollutants that disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities. And California has also already developed an approach for estimating the induced driving that will result from its highway projects, which other states can and should adopt. 

We are very excited to see MnDOT take bold steps to address climate change emissions in transportation by addressing the role the transportation system plays in forcing people to drive more and further. They are showing themselves to be leaders and we hope to see many more states follow.

Biden’s infrastructure plan is out. Here are our thoughts

Early this morning, the Biden administration released the American Jobs Plan, President Biden’s infrastructure proposal. There’s a lot to be excited about, including massively increased funding for transit and passenger rail—but as we wrote last week, how we target the funding matters as much as how much we spend. Here’s our take on the proposal. 

The White House, September 2019. Photo by dconvertini on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

All of the funding included in President Biden’s proposal  is meant to sit on top of existing federal programs and the upcoming surface reauthorization, not replace that policy-making process, according to a White House briefing our director Beth Osborne was invited to attend earlier today. 

More money for public transit and rail combined than highways 

We have never seen this much money for public transportation and passenger rail included in a presidential infrastructure proposal. President Biden’s plan includes $85 billion to “modernize transit agencies,” meaning both maintaining existing transit infrastructure and expanding service to bring “bus, bus rapid transit, and rail service to communities and neighborhoods across the country.” 

This is huge: investing in public transportation is critical to increasing equitable and affordable access to jobs and services post-pandemic, reducing our carbon emissions (especially since transportation is the largest source of U.S. emissions), and powering our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there’s no mention of recurring federal operating support for transit—something public transportation needs in order to provide frequent, convenient, and desirable transit service. 

In addition to public transit, Biden proposes $80 billion for Amtrak to address the repair backlog, modernize the Northeast Corridor and other rail routes, make new connections between cities by rail, and update existing grant and loan programs. The U.S. hasn’t made a substantial, long-term commitment to passenger rail in almost a century, making this funding critically important to building the passenger rail network the U.S. needs to improve access and reduce carbon emissions. 

There’s no specific mention of preserving Amtrak’s long-distance routes—something the rail corporation has fought to dismantle in recent years. However, the proposal does call for improving existing corridors and connecting new city pairs. Amtrak’s long-distance network provides critical connections to rural America and for people unable to traverse the country by car or by air, and is even more essential post-pandemic with the continued loss of essential air service and multiple long-distance bus companies cutting routes and even shutting down permanently. 

Road repair is discussed as a priority but the devil is in the detail 

Biden’s plan includes $115 billion to “fix it better” for our bridges, highways, roads, and “main streets.” This funding will include formula and competitive funding. We love the mention of fix it first (one of T4America’s three principles for transportation policy), but one of the stated goals of this funding—in addition to improving air quality and limiting emissions—is to “reduce congestion” and “modernize,” which usually means the same thing.

“Reducing congestion” is a fool’s errand. As we found in our report the Congestion Con, widening and building new highways only makes traffic worse. If “fix it better” means widening highways at the same time we repair them, the Biden plan will only induce more people to drive—making congestion even worse than what it was before, and putting our carbon emissions on an irreversible upwards trajectory. 

To truly focus on repair, the actual legislative language would require serious policy changes to ensure that this money isn’t diverted to road expansion. Our 2019 report Repair Priorities found that states spend a significant portion of highway formula funding to build new roads, creating costly new maintenance liabilities in the form of new roads and lane-miles—even though they are allowed (welcome, even!) to spend that money on maintenance. Why? Because there’s no requirement that they do so. 

Billions for repairing damage caused by urban highways but not enough focus on preserving housing affordability 

The construction of the Interstate Highway System in many cases led to the intentional demolition and dividing of many communities of color across the country. It’s long-past time for federal funding to repair the health, financial, physical, and emotional damage wrought on families in these neighborhoods—which is why we released a comprehensive policy package to this effect a few months ago with our partners at Third Way.

President Biden proposes $20 billion “for a new program that will reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic investments and ensure new projects increase opportunity, advance racial equity and environmental justice, and promote affordable access.” While the broader plan has very interesting proposals on providing more affordable housing,  this specific proposal is missing any discussion or policy to ensure that removing highways or building connections between them doesn’t make adjacent housing unaffordable—a huge reason why many communities suffering the burden of these highways actually want them to stay. A place based approach will be needed connected to any such project.

Biden’s $20 billion for urban highways includes funding for research on “advanced pavements that recycle carbon dioxide.” While recycling carbon dioxide is a good goal, it barely touches on the health issues that our highway system places disproprotionately on neighborhoods of color. The air pollution generated by urban highways has caused massive and devastating health consequences for communities living near them. That pollution comes from vehicles, pavement (that emits on hot days), tires and more. We need better pavement but also less pavement. 

Also, if the $115 billion for highways funds expansions, then we could be further dividing and displacing people (usually people of color) at the same time we’re fixing past damage caused by these projects in the past. We need to do better going forward, not create new assets that continue to create the same damage.

$20 billion for “safety” but nothing explicitly prioritizing safety over speed

Biden’s $115 billion for “modernizing” roads includes $20 billion to “improve road safety for all users, including increases to existing safety programs and a new Safe Streets for All program to fund state and local ‘vision zero’ plans and other improvements to reduce crashes and fatalities, especially for cyclists and pedestrians.” 

This is really important.  We hope to see a program like this paired with specific requirements like those in the House of Representatives’ surface transportation reauthorization proposal, passed last summer. That includes Complete Streets and context-sensitive designs when repairing or constructing roads surrounded by development—meaning roads that aren’t highways and have homes and businesses along them. 

With the number of people killed while walking or using mobility-assistive devices skyrocketing—increasing by 45 percent over the past decade, as we found in our new report, Dangerous by Design—we accept nothing less than design standards that ensure that safety is prioritized over vehicle speed. Because street design that ensures high speed driving over all else is to blame for the skyrocketing number of people killed on our roadways. 

Details matter and more to come

This just scratches the surface of the proposal. We have failed to mention so many other exciting proposals. For example, there is $174 billion dedicated to stoking a domestic electric vehicle industry, placing 500,000 electric vehicle chargers, and replacing gas cars and buses with clean electric vehicles. There are proposals for more affordable housing, eliminating exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies, broadband deployment and more. We will review those provisions too in conjunction with our parent organization, Smart Growth America, soon.

Right now, suffice it to say that there is a lot to be excited about in this infrastructure proposal. There are billions for public transit and passenger rail (more than what’s allocated for highways), a focus on repairing existing highways and making them safer, and funding dedicated to repairing the damage wrought on Black and brown communities by urban highways. 

Now we need to watch for the details to ensure that the funding proposed goes to the exciting goals cited and to ensure that these billions will not just be pumped into existing federal transportation programs not designed to achieve these outcomes. 

The infrastructure stimulus will do more harm than good if policy doesn’t change

The Biden administration is preparing to release an infrastructure stimulus package, potentially as soon as next week. We’re having flashbacks to the Recovery Act of 2009, a package that missed a lot of opportunities. Here’s why the way funding is allocated matters as much — if not more — than how much funding is proposed. 

Is this the transportation system we want to double down on? Fortunately, those involved in this crash on Houston’s I-45 suffered no life-threatening injuries. Photo by Adventures of KM&G-Morris on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

The vaunted “infrastructure stimulus” might be upon us, with rumored price tags (big price tags) for prospective infrastructure investments leaking out of the White House. 

We’ve been here before: the 2009 Recovery Act put a lot of money into existing federal transportation programs—rather than targeting the funding for a specific purpose —in order to move money quickly. But these programs weren’t designed to solve the issue at hand: short-term job creation. So they failed to create the most new jobs as they could have. 

This time around, Americans want an infrastructure package that addresses economic recovery through job creation; rebuilds crumbling roads, bridges, and transit systems; and reduces climate emissions and racial inequities. But our existing federal transportation programs aren’t built to achieve these outcomes—no matter how much more money is pumped into them. In fact, they often produce the opposite result: building new infrastructure we can’t afford to maintain, driving up emissions and creating barriers to people of color trying to get to work and essential services.

So as the White House unveils its approach to infrastructure, listen less to the price tags or the messaging and look more at specifically how they allocate the funding. For example: 

  • If they say they’re “repairing crumbling roads and bridges” but just fund the existing transportation program that has failed to do so for decades then they’re not repairing crumbling roads and bridges. 
  • If they say they’re investing in climate by electrifying vehicles but double down on a vehicle-only transportation system then they’re investing in climate half-heartedly — undermining the efficiencies they are getting from cars with inefficiencies and burdens from the transportation system. 
  • If they say they’re helping communities of color but give states money to displace those communities in order to widen a road (like I-45 in Houston) or allow the construction of deadly roads that disproportionately kill Black and brown people then they’re not helping communities of color. 

When it comes to infrastructure, the words often do not match the funding. We should not be fooled by that. We need to look at what they are doing with the money and hold them accountable for what they are promising.

What we want Secretary Buttigieg to answer at the House Transportation hearing tomorrow

Tomorrow, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg heads to Capitol Hill for his first hearing as Secretary, where the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will question him on the Biden administration’s goals for infrastructure. We’ve been impressed by Sec. Buttigieg’s rhetoric so far—from his commitment to repairing the damage in Black and brown communities caused by urban highways to making fix-it-first his “mantra“—so we want to hear how he’ll make it happen.

People biking on a trail near the Kennedy Center, Washington DC. Photo by Angela N. on Greater and Lesser Washington’s Flickr pool.

Stimulus

  • The administration is discussing a major stimulus package focused on infrastructure funding. Will that package specifically address climate, equity and repairing crumbling infrastructure rather than simply adding additional funding to the existing programs that have failed to address these issues?
  • In the 2009 Recovery Act, Congress intended to spur job creation, but that was not how the infrastructure funds were targeted. In an attempt to move quickly, Congress defaulted to existing programs that were poorly tailored to address the issues at hand. How can we learn from that experience and do better this time?

Repair and maintenance

  • You and the administration have repeatedly acknowledged the need to fix our transportation infrastructure: our roads, bridges, and transit. Yet, our current federal programs have not successfully been able to do this. Why is this the case?
  • Can we get to “fix-it-first” with the way we currently prioritize funding?

Safety

  • A recent report by the National Complete Streets Coalition found that pedestrian fatalities have increased by 45 percent over the last 10 years. Much of this has to do with dangerous street design and transportation laws that make safety for those walking and rolling an afterthought while making speedy vehicle movement the priority. 
    • Should we continue to have separate and parallel highway and safety programs, with the safety funding significantly lower than the highway funding? Can we address the safety crisis without fundamentally reforming the highway program?
    • The INVEST Act, passed by the House last Congress, centered safety throughout the bill. Would you support centering safety throughout a transportation title instead of maintaining the status quo?
  • Poor safety design has led to disproportionate safety outcomes for communities of color, often incentivizing these communities to break the law and risk interacting with police, or put themselves in harm’s way when navigating unsafe infrastructure. How can the federal transportation program require street designs which promote safety, particularly for vulnerable road users?
  • Would you support requiring DOT to collect locations of all collisions resulting in death or serious injury, highlighting those involving cyclists and pedestrians, and produce a detailed map of an annual High Injury Network?

Transit

  • Since 1982  highways have received approximately 80 percent of surface transportation funding and transit has received approximately 20 percent. Do you and the administration believe we can meet our transportation needs, respond to the climate crisis, and connect all Americans to jobs and services by continuing the way we currently distribute federal funding for highways and transit, often referred to as the 80/20 split?
  • Do you support revisiting the 80/20 split to ensure funding goes to moving all Americans, especially our most vulnerable communities who rely on transit?
  • This pandemic, more than ever, has highlighted the importance of transit in connecting our essential communities to jobs and services. The federal government has long maintained the position to not provide operating costs for transit agencies that often serve our most vulnerable communities.  Do you support long-term federal operating support for transit agencies?

Equity

  • This pandemic, more than ever, has highlighted the importance of transit in connecting our essential communities to jobs and services. The federal government has long maintained the position to not provide operating costs for transit agencies that often serve our most vulnerable communities.  Do you support long-term federal operating support for transit agencies that connects marginalized communities to jobs and services?
  • Poor safety design has led to disproportionate safety outcomes for communities of color, often incentivizing these communities to break the law and risk interacting with police, or put themselves in harm’s way when navigating unsafe infrastructure. How can the federal transportation program require street designs which promote safety, particularly for vulnerable road users?
  • When we measure the transportation system, we look at the speed of vehicles. This ignores people without a car (disproportionately Black and brown people) out completely and it doesn’t look at a person’s whole trip — only their speed along a portion of it. Now that we can measure whole trips and all modes of travel to determine who is able to access jobs and essential services, shouldn’t this be one of our main performance measures?
  • You and the administration have acknowledged that urban highways have caused substantial harm to the economic prosperity, public health and connectivity of marginalized communities. Do you support a program to address the damage caused to Black and brown communities by urban highways and other infrastructure with funding and programs to prevent displacement?

(Atlanta before and after I-75/85)

Climate

  • A 2018 California Air Resources Board report found that, even after a ten-fold increase in the number of zero-emission vehicles, California would have to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita by 25 percent to achieve its climate goals. Should we wait for the full turnover of the fleet and hope that is enough? Or should we use every tool we have including investing in infrastructure and transportation policies that enable people to make fewer and shorter car trips?
  • The more fuel burned and the more roads built, the more money a state receives for transportation. Do you agree that this is a perverse incentive which exacerbates both congestion and climate change?
  • Traditional measures of a successful transportation system support high speed, free flowing travel. This means that a long-distance commute where a car moves very quickly would be considered more successful than a far shorter commute at a slower speed. Do you agree that designing roads with speed as the highest goal leads us to more and wider roads, more and longer trips, and more greenhouse gas emissions ?
  • How should we reform the federal transportation program to encourage efforts to shorten people’s trips and allow them to travel using carbon free modes, like walking?

Congestion

  • As you have stated, since the 1950s the federal transportation program has incentivized the construction of new highways. This has failed to solve congestion and, in fact, through a phenomenon called “induced demand” typical worsens congestion. In a recent report, Transportation for America found that while freeway capacity grew 42 percent in the largest 100 metropolitan areas, 10 percent more than population growth, congestion grew by 144 percent. In fact, congestion grew a great deal even in places that lost population.
    • How can the federal government incentivize a more effective approach, including more balanced transportation options and less carbon-intensive modes? 
    • Should the federal government require the use of accurate transportation models that include induced demand and those traveling outside a vehicle so as to understand the true benefits and tradeoffs of a project being funded with federal dollars? 

Rail

  • With the administration’s push for passenger rail investments in many underserved regions of the country, how do you plan to expand high-quality passenger rail service to more parts of the country, particularly smaller communities already suffering the loss of essential air service?
  • Do you agree that it is reasonable for rail passengers, just like airline, cruise, and any other passengers, to expect that the service will arrive and depart on time? What will you do to improve on-time performance?
  • Most intercity passenger rail serves a multi-state region, with passengers regularly traveling across state lines. Regional collaboration to support passenger rail service is only as effective as coordination between governors, state departments of transportation, and other relevant state and local officials and entities. Would you support incentivizing the creation of interstate passenger rail compacts similar to the compact that governs the Southern Rail Commission? 

The economy

  • As the recent Amazon HQ2 search highlighted, businesses want to be located in walkable, transit-connected communities. Last week, a coalition of local Chambers of Commerce wrote to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and made it clear that businesses want the federal transportation program to invest in projects that improve people’s access to jobs and services—not increase vehicle speeds. 
    • Do you agree that safer, walkable, transit-friendly communities support economic growth and business creation?
    • As a former Mayor, can you describe the economic impacts of investments in complete and safe streets?
    • What reforms to the federal transportation program will support local economic development?

Month of Action Week 4: A manual for safer streets

EDIT, Wednesday, May 12: The deadline to submit a comment supporting a rewrite of the MUTCD closes this Friday. We need you to submit a comment before then—it only takes one minute using the tool below!

The Federal Highway Administration has extended the comment period on the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a document used by planners across the country for street design. We need you to submit a comment urging the FHWA to rewrite the MUTCD to put pedestrian and cyclist safety front and center.

A person biking in Washington, DC. during the Black Lives Matter Ride for Justice in summer 2020. Photo by Ted Eytan on Greater and Lesser Washington’s Flickr pool.

It’s Week 4 of our Month of Action! Thank you if you took last week’s action to share the Congestion Con with your Senators.

For Week 4, we need you to tell the Federal Highway Administration to rewrite its guide to traffic safety. 

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a street design document used by planners across the country. Yet to date, the MUTCD has done little to help stem the approximately 40,000 traffic deaths the U.S. sees each year. This is due largely to the Manual’s overemphasis on designing for motor vehicle speed on rural highways, and failure to truly take into account all modes of travel in the places where people live and work.

The previous administration  proposed tepid changes to the MUTCD that failed to fix its deeply flawed approach. We need you to submit a comment to show support for rewriting this document. 

Submitting a comment to the Federal Register is easy. You can either download the template comment we co-wrote with NACTO here, personalize it as much or as little as you like, and submit your comment through Regulations.gov, OR, you can use this simple form below to quickly and easily send in your comment right from this page.

Don’t forget to customize your letter however you like and add in examples, your organization name (if any) to help your letter stand out from the rest.  

They said “no new money for transportation” was a bad message. They were wrong.

Two years ago, Transportation for America bucked advocacy convention by refusing to talk about funding, discussing only the outcomes of funding instead. We even said that we do not support any new funding for transportation if the underlying policy doesn’t change. Our surprising strategy has yielded results. 

The U.S. Capitol in February 2021. Photo by Ted Eytan in the Greater and Lesser Washington Flickr pool (Creative Commons).

If insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, the converse must also be good advice: If at first you don’t succeed, try something different.

Over the last 12 years, Transportation for America (T4America) has conducted well-respected work advancing incremental reform in national transportation policy, but falling far short of transformational. In those years, T4America took a more traditional approach, advocating for more transportation funding because a piece of a larger pie of new funding could be dedicated to the things we have underinvested in—transit, biking, walking, intercity passenger rail, and smarter land-use planning. 

We believed (as most still do) that a “rising tide lifts all boats” approach is how you get invited to the table. Through this strategy, we made important progress by getting more money dedicated to alternative forms of transportation. However, with another transportation authorization approaching, we knew it was time for a different, bold, approach. 

Bucking convention, two years ago we shifted our strategy and message away from advocating for funding. Transportation policy is complex and our past platforms reflected that. This time, we sought to coalesce around two to three simple, easy-to-understand ideas that could transform the transportation system. 

In June 2019, we convened a group of partners representing communities large and small and a variety of organizations to identify three goals and associated outcomes that, together, would take the federal transportation program in a new direction. We tasked the advisory group to identify outcomes that were easy to understand, achievable and ambitious. 

We unveiled these principles in September 2019 and made a splash, especially with our announced break from the traditional approach of advocating for more funding, introduced earlier in 2019 in a widely-circulated Washington Post op-ed from T4America director Beth Osborne. The op-ed made serious waves by landing at the start of Infrastructure Week’s usual and predictable calls for more money. 

We stood out in a major way from most of the transportation advocacy community in DC, whether trade groups or nonprofits, because we were no longer willing to support more money for a broken program—even if our priorities got a little piece of the pie. These principles, re-released earlier this month, have been so potent precisely because they are indeed easy to understand, achievable and ambitious. 

The principles and outcomes are designed to rebuild crumbling infrastructure, reduce climate emissions, save lives, and equitably improve access to opportunity. They are:

  • Prioritize maintenance: Cut the road, bridge and transit maintenance backlog in half by dedicating formula highway funds to maintenance.
  • Design for safety over speed: A serious effort to reduce deaths on our roadways requires slower speeds on local and arterial roads. The federal program should require designs and approaches that put safety first.
  • Connect people to jobs and services: Don’t focus on speed. Instead determine how well the transportation system connects people to jobs and services, and prioritize the projects that will improve those connections.

And no more money for a program that will not deliver these results.

Many thought our strategy (especially opposing new funding until our priorities were addressed) would get us excused from the table, but it actually got us invited to draft a better approach. In June 2020, a little over a year after T4America started the effort, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee drafted a reauthorization proposal, the INVEST in America Act, that reflects all three principles and significantly better outcomes for decisions involving transit, highways, and balanced intercity passenger rail. Some key elements:

  • A destination access performance measure was included in the INVEST Act. This followed bipartisan legislation (the COMMUTE Act) introduced in both chambers of Congress creating a pilot program to promote access (which was included in the Senate authorization). The INVEST Act also establishes grant programs in the bill focusing transportation funding on getting people access to jobs and necessities like groceries and medical care instead of increasing vehicle speed.
  • The bill prioritizes “Complete and Context Sensitive Design” across federal spending and requires states and metro areas to consider and design for the safety of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles.
  • While the initial version of the INVEST Act made progress on prioritizing repair and maintenance, it had some loopholes. Working with leaders Rep. Chuy García of Illinois (the Future of Transportation Caucus co-chair) and Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, a bipartisan amendment  was passed to strengthen the language—and not a single member of the committee opposed it.
  • Transformative climate legislation, the GREEN Streets Act, was introduced in both chambers, and would require a vehicle miles traveled performance measure. A greenhouse gas performance measure and programs to fund electrification infrastructure were then included in the INVEST Act.  

This five-year transportation bill subsequently passed the House. The bill isn’t perfect, but it is a huge improvement over the current program. We are proud to have changed the debate and established a new standard for what national transportation policy can look like.

By taking a bold position on the long-term problems with our nation’s approach to transportation and the immediate need for change, T4America has also influenced other policy-making this spring to a degree that is far beyond the scale of the organization. For example: 

  • After we led the effort to organize support for providing public transit with emergency financial relief during the public health crisis, Congress provided an un prescedented $69.5 billion in emergency operating support ($25 billion in the CARES Act, an additional $14 billion in the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA), and $30.5 billion in the American Rescue Plan). 
  • The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis legislative action plan incorporated T4America principles throughout, featured our reports, included dozens of our recommendations, and proposed language throughout the transportation section that emphasizes traffic reduction strategies that center equitable outcomes, rather than limiting itself to the inadequate strategy of electrifying the vehicle fleet.
  • Because of direct T4America engagement and pressure, the CDC revised its first COVID transportation guidance to be more transit friendly after initially releasing guidance that ignored the health impacts of discouraging transit ridership and encouraging more people to drive alone.
  • We released a policy proposal in partnership with Third Way to undo the damage in communities of color caused by urban renewal projects. T4America successfully worked to include Capital Instruction Grant’s to remove urban renewal projects in Sen. Schumer’s Economic Justice Act.

We now have a leader at USDOT singing from our hymnal. We expect a stronger Senate bill. The debate has shifted. We’re in position to win big in 2021 with your help if we continue to stand for change and not agree to bad bills just because it throws a little more money our way.

The Senate needs a new transportation bill—and over 120 elected officials and organizations agree

Current long-term transportation policy expires this September, giving Congress a rare opportunity to fundamentally rethink American transportation. That’s why the House passed a transformative bill last summer—but the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a status quo bill that would just make our problems worse. Over 120 elected officials and organizations signed our letter urging the Senate to take a new course. 

A floating bus stop with a bike lane in Montgomery County, MD. Photo by Beyond DC on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Last summer, the House of Representatives passed a long-term transportation bill completely unlike any we’ve seen before. 

The bill—called the INVEST Act—required states to maintain their roadways before building new ones; use Complete Streets design standards, among other policies that make the safety of people walking and biking a priority; and measure how well their transportation investments connect people to jobs and services, and prioritize investments that improve those connections—regardless of mode. 

These policy changes would start the work of focusing our transportation policy on outcomes, not dollars—building a transportation system that connects people to what they need affordably, safely, conveniently, equitably, and sustainably. 

The Senate was a different story. The Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee is responsible for writing the highway portion of the long-term transportation law, and the bill they passed in summer 2019 was, kindly, so-so:

  • No requirement to maintain roads with the overwhelming amount of funding dedicated to highways; 
  • Nothing to curb the skyrocketing number of people killed while walking every year; 
  • The bill included a pilot program to measure access, but nothing to reorient the federal transportation program from mindlessly pursuing vehicle speed as a goal. 

As we wrote then, we’re tired of the same old transportation bills that pump money into building highways at the expense of our crumbling roads and bridges, people’s access to essential jobs and services, and human life.

But there’s hope: The new chair of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee (the Senate committee responsible for the public transit portion of the long-term transportation bill) has said that he wants his committee to take a much bigger role in passing this legislation. (Historically, EPW has taken the lead, leaving transit policy and funding in the dust.) In addition, the new EPW chair has requested feedback this month from members on surface transportation priorities.

To capitalize on this, 124 elected officials and organizations from 35 states signed our letter urging the Senate to pick a new path—like the INVEST Act—to the long-term transportation bill. It’s time for the Senate to pass a bill that fundamentally updates the 70 year old federal transportation program to prioritize maintenance, design for safety over speed, and connect people to jobs and services—and so many agree. 

To achieve this vision, the EPW and Banking committees must work together—a critical piece of our message to the Senate. Our letter reads: 

“Climate change, racial and economic equity, safety, and maintenance are interrelated transportation challenges—just like highways, public transit, biking, walking, and passenger rail are interrelated. We can no longer consider these issues in legislative and policy silos; coordination among your committees is essential to delivering the transportation system Americans deserve. 

“As an example of the committee coordination needed, we support significant new investment in public transit and passenger rail—including operating support for public transit—to provide more people with safe, reliable, and convenient service. At the same time, every trip begins and ends as a pedestrian and we also support investments in safe streets and more connected communities that are necessary to leverage investments in transit and rail. “

As Senators hit the drafting board this spring, we urge them to take our recommendations to heart. It’s long past time for visionary transportation legislation that meets the moment. 

Read our full letter here, and check out our blogs on the Senate and House bills: 

Statement on Surface Transportation Board’s expanded capacity

press release

A statement from Transportation for America chairman and former mayor of Meridian, MS, John Robert Smith, on the Surface Transportation Board (STB)’s recently expanded capacity: 

“Transportation for America commends the Surface Transportation Board for creating a new passenger rail desk to expedite slow decision-making that often impedes the expansion of reliable passenger rail service. While freight railways are critically important to our nation’s logistics network and the effort to reduce transportation emissions, these companies too often serve as a hurdle to delivering passenger rail that meets 21st century needs. 

“Although Congress gave Amtrak the right to operate passenger trains over all freight right-of-way, many freight railroads have simply said ‘no’ to proposed passenger service. Amtrak’s only hope for resolution laid at the STB.

“Slow STB decisions—due to limited capacity—benefit those standing in the way of passenger rail in the long-term, and end up discouraging many areas from even considering passenger rail as a solution to mobility needs. We are happy to see the STB take steps to address this problem and hope to see more and more reliable passenger rail as a result.” 

Month of Action Week 3: Ending the Congestion Con

Vehicles moving slowly on a congested highway in Seattle. The highway crosses a narrow river.

With Congress writing long-term transportation policy this month, we need to make sure that this bill doesn’t continue the broken status quo. This week, we need you to tell your Senators that widening highways just makes traffic worse.

Vehicles moving slowly on a congested highway in Seattle. The highway crosses a narrow river.
Highway traffic in Seattle. Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr.

With the Senate writing long-term transportation policy right now, our Month of Action is going full-steam ahead. Thank you if you took last week’s action to send a message about the Complete Streets Act to your members of Congress.

For Week 3, we need you to tell your Senators that widening highways doesn’t work. 

In the name of “congestion relief,” we’ve spent decades and hundreds of billions of dollars widening and building new highways. Even though we widened freeways faster than population grew, congestion got worse—144 percent worse, as we found in our report last March, the Congestion Con. 

It’s time to stop wasting billions on projects that make our problems worse.

Use the Congestion Con to tell your Senators how much freeway growth and congestion increased in your urbanized area. 

(1) Find the percent growth in lane miles and congestion (technically known as “delay”) for your urbanized area here.

(2) Personalize this tweet to your Senators: 

“Our metro area increased lane miles by XX% yet congestion increased by XX%. Expanding highways doesn’t work. Let’s end the #CongestionCon. @your senator @your senator t4america.org/maps-tools/congestion-con/” 

(3) Find your Senators’ Twitter handles here. (If you don’t have Twitter, you can send this message as a short email.) 

Thank you for taking action! It’s time for a long-term transportation bill that actually connects us to the jobs and services we need, equitably, sustainably, safely, and affordably. Thanks for helping us get there.

Why the INVEST Act is good for climate and business

We can have it all: a federal transportation program that reduces carbon emissions while boosting our economy. The House of Representatives led the way last summer with the INVEST Act, a bill that starts the work of connecting federal funding to the transportation outcomes Americans—including our businesses—need. Here’s how. 

A Washington, DC street in June 2020. Photo by Ted Eytan in Greater Greater Washington’s Flickr pool.

Transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States, and the majority of them come from driving. Infrastructure investments that give people more options than hopping in the car are key to reducing these emissions. And luckily, these investments are great for our businesses, too. 

When the House of Representatives passed the INVEST Act last summer—a transportation bill that took huge steps toward aligning funding with the outcomes Americans want (getting to where they need to go)—we took a deep dive on the parts of the bill that do the most to reduce emissions. It’s not just one “climate title”—reducing emissions is in the bill’s DNA. 

With the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee holding a hearing this Wednesday on the “business case for climate solutions,” let’s revisit the climate measures in the INVEST Act to see how they boost our economy. 

Investing in public transit = good for business

As our partners Smart Growth America found in their report Core Values, businesses are relocating to transit-accessible downtowns to attract talent, bringing economic development with them. Yet the federal transportation program works against this trend. Public transportation has been underinvested in for decades, with the few federal funds transit receives undermined by overwhelming highway funding that doubles down on sprawl—an environment where transit can’t succeed. 

The INVEST Act increases transit funding by 47 percent, while also overhauling policies that have long obstructed transit as a truly viable option in communities, as we wrote last summer. The bill incentivizes transit agencies to increase service frequency, reversing policies that in practice incentivized agencies to do the opposite in order to decrease operating costs to the detriment of transit service. 

Members of Chambers for Transit—our coalition of over 35 local chambers of commerce fighting for robust public transit investment—know that increased transit investment improves access to jobs, sparks new development, and creates the kinds of vibrant communities that can attract a talented workforce. (That’s why Chambers for Transit sent a letter to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week.) It also improves access to the economy for people of color and low-income people, who make up larger shares of transit riders. 

Measuring access, not vehicle speed = good for businesses

Businesses want the federal transportation program to invest in projects that improve people’s access to jobs and services—not increase vehicle speeds. That’s why so many of our Chambers for Transit members support using new technologies to prioritize projects that improve people’s access to the things they need. (This is one of our three principles for transportation policy). 

For decades, the federal transportation program has done the opposite, measuring the success of its investments by vehicle speed. This doesn’t take into account whether or not people actually arrived at their destination. And it encourages states and planning organizations to build more and wider roads. This pushes homes and businesses farther apart from each other, making it much more difficult to walk, bike, or use transit, while in the long-haul, making congestion worse and increasing vehicle miles traveled and emissions. It also limits access to the economy to people who can afford to and are able to operate a car. 

To build the type of communities where you don’t have to drive everywhere, we need to measure success by access: how many destinations you can reach from your home by any mode. The INVEST Act transitions the federal transportation program to just that. 

Through a new performance measure, the INVEST Act requires recipients of federal transportation funding to improve people’s access to jobs and services, whether they drive, take transit, walk or bike. This will direct more funds to projects that shorten or eliminate the need for driving trips. The bill also requires states to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation system. States that reduce emissions can be rewarded with increased flexibility, while states that fail to reduce emissions will face penalties. 

Improving safety to make it easier to walk and bike = good for business

Connected, walkable neighborhoods vastly economically outperform neighborhoods where the only way to get around is by driving—especially in terms of real estate. For-sale housing in dense, walkable neighborhoods in the 30 largest metropolitan areas were valued nearly double more than the rest of the for-sale housing market in those regions, as found in Foot Traffic Ahead, a 2019 Smart Growth America report. 

It’s not just real estate: businesses thrive on streets safe for biking and walking, as expertly highlighted (with great photos, too) by our friends at Strong Towns. You’re much more likely to cross the street to grab a cup of coffee if it’s safe and easy to do so. And with pedestrian fatalities skyrocketing across the country, there are too many streets where that is impossible.

The INVEST Act takes a comprehensive approach to make walking and biking safer through a combination of increased funding, policy reform, and better provisions to hold states accountable, as we wrote last year. Some of the bill’s safety provisions include: 

  • Requires states to adopt Complete Street design principles and makes $250 million available for active transportation projects including Complete Streets
  • Changes to how speed limits are set to prioritize safety results over a faster auto trip.
  • Requires states with the highest levels of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities to set aside funds to address those needs.
  • Prohibits states setting annual targets for roadway fatalities that are negative—in other words, targets that assume the current trend line of increased fatalities is unstoppable, essentially accepting more fatalities every year as an unavoidable cost.

Reducing transportation emissions has a host of other benefits 

To reduce transportation emissions, we have to give people more viable transportation options than driving. That means public transportation, biking, walking, and incentivizing community growth where destinations aren’t sprawling. 

Not only are these investments good for our businesses, but they improve equity too, by removing the $10,000 barrier to enter the economy—the average annual cost of car ownership. These investments also increase transportation access for people with disabilities or people unable to drive, and they significantly reduce air pollution, too—one of the largest risk factors for bad cases of COVID-19. 

If Congress wants to help our businesses embrace the 21st century and fight climate change, it’s time to invest in transportation that works—not new roads to nowhere.

Road and public transit maintenance create more jobs than building new highways

With Congress charged with passing a long-term transportation law this year, many hope that increased infrastructure spending will create more jobs. We have to remember that not all infrastructure spending is equal: road and public transit maintenance projects actually create more jobs than highway expansion projects.

Maintaining public transit in Chicago.

The first goal of transportation infrastructure investment is getting people and goods where they need to go. When that investment is part of a package to jumpstart the economy, an important secondary goal is creating new jobs. But in the past, Congress has failed to require states to pick the best investments to do this, partially due to the misconception that spending funds on big highway expansion projects creates a lot of jobs. Dollar-for-dollar, it doesn’t.

Take the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA). Between 2009 and 2010, ARRA gave states $26 billion to spend on surface transportation capital projects and $8.4 billion for public transportation capital projects, as we wrote in our joint report with Smart Growth America analyzing this bill last year. States were required to report how they spent that money, and how many jobs they created with it.

Because of that requirement, we know that every ARRA dollar spent on public transportation produced 70 percent more job hours than an ARRA dollar spent on highways. Transit preventive maintenance produced the most jobs out of the main categories for ARRA transit spending, including rail car purchase and rehabilitation, transit infrastructure, and bus purchase and rehabilitation. 

Similarly, road repair produces 16 percent more jobs per dollar than new road construction, according to 2009 research from Smart Growth America and the University of Utah. This makes sense: maintenance jobs are open to more kinds of workers, spend less money on equipment and more on wages, and spend less time on plans and permits. Meanwhile, new capacity projects require more funding for buying costly property, which has little or no stimulative or reinvestment value, as we wrote in our joint recommendations for any and all COVID-19 relief packages with Smart Growth America. 

Unfortunately, we can’t know if investments in transit maintenance or transit operations (the costs of running a transit agency, as opposed to the costs to construct or maintain transit infrastructure) produce more jobs, because ARRA forbade states from spending funds on operations. But we do know that transit operations funding often goes straight to employees’ wages. 

Prioritizing funds on roadway and public transit maintenance is also popular with voters. In a March 2020 poll conducted by Transportation for America and several partners, 79 percent of respondents said that they want to focus federal funding on fixing roads and public transit. 

With current long-term transportation policy expiring in September—at the same time our economy is struggling to recover from an unprecedented pandemic—Congress has an opportunity to create the most new jobs and finally rebuild our “crumbling infrastructure.” All by simply increasing funding for transit maintenance and requiring that states fix-it-first: maintain their existing roadways before building new ones. 

Congress to pass billions in much-needed relief for public transit and Amtrak

Today, Congress will take a big step towards recovering the United States’ essential public transit and passenger rail network from the pandemic with a $1.9 trillion stimulus package. The bill—soon to be voted on in the House and signed into law by President Biden—includes $30.5 billion in emergency relief for public transit and $1.7 billion for Amtrak. 

Riders waiting to board a MARC train at Baltimore’s Penn Station. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

We’ve been researching, organizing, blogging, tweeting, meeting, rallying, advising, and even meme-ing about it for a year now: COVID-19 has thrown public transportation and passenger rail into crisis. 

With revenue from fares and taxes declining, the operating budgets of these essential public goods have been running on fumes. The threat of permanent service cuts grows ever more serious by the day—despite the fact that public transit has been essential to our pandemic response. Limited funding even forced some transit agencies to consider service cuts as soon as this spring, mere months after the last infusion of emergency relief was passed in December. 

Today, the House of Representatives will pass much-needed emergency funding that greatly reduces the threat of service cuts. The bill, known as the American Rescue Plan Act, includes $30.5 billion for public transit and $1.7 billion for Amtrak. 

“Public transportation and passenger rail are essential to every aspect of American life. We’re thrilled that Congress understands this and is legislating accordingly,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “The American Rescue Plan means that cities and towns will not reopen without transit and rail operating, and ensures that essential workers and riders counting on transit to reach jobs, healthcare, groceries, and other services throughout the pandemic will have these vital connections.”

The emergency funding for public transit includes much-needed operating funds and emergency funding for Capital Investment Grants (CIG), the main transit construction program. Senators increased the amount of funding House legislators provided for CIG by $250 million. 

We consider the $30.5 billion for transit as a significant down payment towards the $39.3 billion in emergency assistance required to truly secure public transit from this crisis. The American Public Transportation Association found in an independent economic analysis that $39.3 billion is the amount needed to avoid service cuts and layoffs through summer 2023. The $30 billion provided in the American Rescue Plan will prevent cuts through 2022. We urge Congress to pass an additional $9.3 billion for transit in subsequent legislation. 

But public transportation needs more than emergency funding to charge an equitable and sustainable economic recovery from COVID-19. Investment in public transit has long been undermined by a federal transportation program that overwhelmingly funds new and wider highways, limiting the impact of transit investments and the amount of funding transit even receives. 

With the light finally at the end of our pandemic tunnel, and with long-term federal transportation policy expiring this year, it’s time for Congress to make public transit and passenger rail a cornerstone of our transportation program: not an afterthought that only receives 20 percent of federal funds. 

Month of Action Week 2: Tackling our deadly streets

With Congress writing long-term transportation policy this month, we need to make sure that this bill doesn’t continue the broken status quo. This week, we need you to take action to support the Complete Streets Act.

With the Senate writing long-term transportation policy right now, our Month of Action is going full-steam ahead. Thank you if you took last week’s action to send our template reauthorization letter to your member of Congress. 

For Week 2, we need you to take action to support the Complete Streets Act. 

The number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking increased by 47 percent over the last decade, as our partners at Smart Growth America found in the latest edition of Dangerous by Design, to be released tomorrow. We are in the midst of an astonishing safety crisis as the United States has become—over decades of broken policy—an incredibly deadly place to walk.

But a handful of leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have introduced a bill that would finally require states and metro areas to design and build safer streets for everyone. The Complete Streets Act of 2021 is desperately needed but it will take your support—and the support of your members of Congress—to get this bill passed into law.

Keep an eye out tomorrow for Dangerous by Design 2021, Smart Growth America’s report showing how dangerous each state and the largest metro areas are for people walking.

Unsafe streets in marginalized communities lead to inequitable traffic enforcement

Equitable enforcement of traffic rules is a major national discussion. But under-discussed is the role dangerously-designed streets play in putting Black and brown people in a perilous position: break traffic law and risk interacting with police, or put themselves in harm’s way when navigating unsafe infrastructure. Here’s our recap on a recent House hearing on equitable enforcement of traffic rules.

A “slip lane” in Atlanta, GA, making street crossings much more dangerous.

Last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit held a hearing on equity in traffic safety enforcement.  The hearing mostly covered data on racial profiling in traffic stops and how to equip our law enforcement officers with tools to identify their implicit bias and learn how to manage it when conducting traffic stops.

While these topics are extremely important, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee doesn’t have jurisdiction over improving the relationship law enforcement has with communities of color. However, it does have jurisdiction over solutions to unsafe street design in these communities that lead to more traffic-related stops between law enforcement and people of color.

For example, take the story of Rodney Reese: a Black high schooler in Texas who was arrested and charged for “being a pedestrian in the roadway” as he walked home from work. Rodney had no choice but to walk in the street because the sidewalk was too icy to safely walk on. He spent a night in jail. 

Racism and bias may have led these officers to arrest and charge a high schooler for walking home from work. But, the question that the subcommittee has jurisdiction over is why was this high schooler walking in the roadway in the first place and what can this committee do about it?

According to Smart Growth America’s report Dangerous by Design, Black Americans were 72 percent more likely to be struck and killed while walking compared to people who don’t identify as Black in the past decade. Black people are also much more likely to be stopped, ticketed, and arrested for jaywalking

Stories like Rodney’s are quite common in marginalized communities where underinvestment has led to unsafe, high-speed street design that make walking and biking all but impossible. Vulnerable communities are often put in an impossible predicament to break the law and put themselves at legal risk to get to work, school or a doctor’s appointment or choose another option that may not be as convenient, cost more money or time.

Safe street design benefits everyone, especially marginalized communities by making it easier to bike, walk, and access transit stops. This can reduce the number of traffic infractions and therefore the number of interactions communities have with law enforcement for traffic related stops. Transportation for America implores the committee to continue to have these conversations and focus on building marginalized communities back better by investing in them. Not only does investing in safe street design prevent communities from having unwanted interactions with law enforcement, it’s also better for economic development. Streets designed to accommodate (slow) drivers, people walking and biking, and transit riders creates thriving communities by attracting businesses and connecting communities to jobs.

Here are a few things the committee can do to improve equity for communities of color and begin to reverse underinvestment in safe streets infrastructure or Black and brown communities:

  • Require USDOT to collect locations of all collisions resulting in death or serious injury, highlighting those involving cyclists and pedestrians, and produce a detailed map of an annual High Injury Network and update the Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems (FARS) accordingly. Better data, and detailed maps of dangerous corridors can help communities target investments to improve safety, and in those communities most impacted by unsafe designs.
  • Identify changes to the process for compiling FARS data so that the release of annual data can occur in the half of each calendar year. FARS data is not available on a regular, predictable, schedule. This undermines its utility for the public and local DOTs. 
  • Require the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue guidance to states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), instructing them not to set safety targets that would be higher than the existing level of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, as many states have routinely done under the current performance management system.
  • Require USDOT issue guidance for determining how investments impact racial and economic equity and to use this guidance as a criterion for discretionary grant programs;
  • Approve the Complete Streets Act of 2021, which creates state complete streets programs and provides funding and technical assistance to develop and construct projects, with a focus on equity and connections to jobs and services;

The INVEST Act, which passed the House in the 116th Congress, made great strides in moving the needle on these issues by incorporating a focus on safety throughout all federal programs and overhauling a broken system that allows states to increase pedestrian death without penalty. It also dedicates more funding to protect vulnerable communities and sets speed limits to prioritize safety over speed.

We want to see Congress build on the INVEST Act and are calling on the House and Senate to fundamentally reform our surface transportation. Continuing on a path of status quo will only exacerbate the inequities our most vulnerable communities face every day.

It’s go time: Launching our Month of Action

With Congress writing long-term transportation policy this month, we need to make sure that this bill doesn’t continue the broken status quo. We need a bill that prioritizes maintenance, designs for safety over speed, and selects investments that improve people’s access to jobs and services—not increase vehicle speed. And we need your help. 

The Senate committees responsible for writing portions of the next long-term transportation law are hitting the drafting board now, with a bill expected later this month. We need to take action to influence this important legislation. 

T4America believes that our three principles for transportation policy—prioritize maintenance, design for safety over speed, and require that investments connect people to jobs and services—can remake America’s transportation program to better address the climate crisis, equity and quality of life in our communities. 

We’re launching a Month of Action to advocate for these three principles in the long-term transportation law. Sign up for our mailing list to receive one small action every week to help influence this important legislation. You’ll also receive our biweekly newsletter on federal policy and transportation news, the Round-up. 

Subscribe for the Month of Action

This week’s action: Send this template letter to your Congressional delegation. 

If you want to do more to influence the transportation bill than the weekly actions (thank you!), we put together an advocacy toolkit for you, which contains: 

  • Talking points on the three principles
  • A template meeting request letter to your Congressional delegation 
  • Sample social media posts
  • Sample social media graphics

With pedestrian fatalities skyrocketing, millions of Americans stranded from jobs and opportunities, and the climate crisis quickly reaching the point of no return, we need to act: We can’t afford to waste another five years and billions of dollars on programs that just make our problems worse. And we will not fundamentally reform the federal transportation program without your help.

If you represent an organization or are an elected official, please sign our letter urging the Senate to pass a long-term law that orients the program transportation program around what counts: connecting everybody to jobs and services equitably, sustainably, affordably and conveniently.

Missed the webinar on our principles?

Fear not, we recorded it! Check out this short webinar with T4America staff below.

House-passed COVID relief bill increases emergency funding for transit construction grants

Local governments’ budgets have been decimated by the pandemic. Yet the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program—the main federal program for funding new transit construction—counts on project sponsors matching federal funds with local funds. To keep transit projects moving, the House approved increased emergency funding for over 24 CIG projects from Arizona to New York in the upcoming COVID-19 relief package. 

Phoenix, AZ’s Valley Metro’s South Central Extension/Downtown Hub—a CIG project that would receive this emergency funding. Photo courtesy of Valley Metro.

Capital Investment Grants (CIG)—composed of the New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity programs—is the federal government’s main program for constructing new and expanded transit projects. Potential CIG projects go through multiple rounds of review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), where they are rated on cost-effectiveness, environmental benefits, land use, congestion relief, and mobility improvements. 

Most other transportation grant programs require a 20 percent local match, whereas current law prohibits any CIG project where the local match is below 50 percent, as we wrote in our report The Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation. In normal times, this places a much higher burden on local and state governments that wish to build or expand public transit. COVID-19 has worsened this burden while also threatening local communities existing commitments. 

Due to COVID-19, local governments’ revenue is significantly down, with tax receipts declining with the economy. As a result, project sponsors are having a much harder time raising funds for the local CIG match. This threatens the viability of existing projects, potentially leading to delays, cost increases and the extreme outcome of cancelling projects. The recent action by the FTA helps, but the CIG program needs emergency funding to support local communities and keep projects moving. 

We are thrilled that the House Budget Committee added an additional $425 million to the $1 billion in emergency funding for CIG included in the first version of the latest COVID relief bill (the American Rescue Plan Act). They will go a long way towards keeping projects moving through the CIG pipeline—at a time when we need frequent and affordable transit more than ever. 

This additional emergency funding for CIG was part of the COVID bill approved by the House this past Friday, which now heads to the Senate. This bill also includes $30 billion in emergency funding for transit agencies, which is needed to ensure that transit can continue to connect Americans to jobs and essential services—because if you have no money to run the system, building new transit is pointless. 

The original bill approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provided $1 billion for CIG projects that have negotiated full funding grant agreement (FFGAs) in fiscal year 2019 or 2020 but are not yet open for revenue service. These funds were to increase the projects’ non-federal match, as a result of project sponsors facing significantly reduced revenues due to COVID. 

The additional $425 million, added to the bill by the House Budget Committee, will be allocated in two ways:

  • $250 million to increase the amount given to each project funded by the base bill
  • $175 million for projects that received their most recent CIG funding in fiscal year 2018 but are not yet open for revenue service. 

Yet more needs to be done to support the demand for new and expanded public transit.

As described in The Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation, Transportation for America recommends replacing the CIG program with two programs: A $6 billion/year formula expansion program, and a $6 billion/year discretionary grant program for capital projects that improve access to frequent transit for low-income people, both requiring a 20 percent local share. 

These investments—along with investments in transit operations, maintenance, and electrification—can be possible if Congress provides transit with the same amount of funding as highways. To truly support public transit, the federal transportation program must be re-oriented towards investments in transit that substantially improve people’s access to jobs and services. 

With Congress writing long-term transportation policy now, we need your help to push for fundamental reforming the federal transportation program. Sign up for our Month of Action—kicking off today, Tuesday, March 2—to take one small action every week to influence this important legislation.

The CDC needs to do more to show the public that transit is safe

Public transit is one of the safest indoor spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic for a plethora of reasons. But the perception of transit’s safety is lagging. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a lot of power to change the narrative and pursue vaccination sites that are transit-accessible, as we wrote in a joint letter to the agency with our partners. 

New York MTA’s Mask Force distributing free masks to subway riders. Photo courtesy of the MTA.

Public transit is incredibly important to our pandemic response, connecting riders and essential workers to jobs, groceries, healthcare and more—safely. With proper precautions such as wearing a mask, transit is one of the safest indoor spaces for COVID-19 transmission, with a plethora of studies failing to link disease spread to transit. 

Why is transit so safe? Buses and trains are highly-ventilated; riders must wear masks (thanks to a new requirement from the CDC); vehicles are cleaned frequently; and riders tend to spend a short amount of time on vehicles and in stations. 

But the CDC isn’t clearly communicating transit’s safety to the public. In fact, last summer the CDC actively encouraged Americans to avoid transit—guidance they updated after criticism from Transportation for America and our partners.

While we’re grateful that the CDC updated this guidance and last month instituted a mask requirement on transit and other forms of transportation, the CDC needs to do more. CDC guidance that does not make it clear that transit is safe undermines public confidence in this essential service and ultimately undermines our communities today and our recovery tomorrow. 

We urged the new CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, to communicate transit’s safety in a new letter written by Transportation for America and signed by our partners the Transport Workers Union, TransitCenter, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). You can read the full letter here. 

It is also critical that the CDC considers transit access as a determining factor in choosing vaccination locations, and to provide guidance to states to ensure no one is denied access to a vaccine. As we wrote in our letter, no one should be denied access to a vaccine because they do not have access to a car. Public transit can and must play an important role in providing Americans with safe, convenient, and equitable transportation to vaccination appointments. 

We urge the CDC to clearly communicate how safe transit is to the public, and make transit access a factor in determining vaccination sites. Americans need transit—the CDC shouldn’t undermine it.