Skip to main content

Walking through questions about our new Playbook for Shared Micromobility

With the help of representatives from two cities, T4America staff a few weeks ago walked through our new Playbook for effectively managing shared micromobility services like dockless bikes, electric scooters, and other new technologies.

Flickr photo by Daniel Lobo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/daquellamanera/38503203635/

Almost overnight, shared scooters and bikes have rapidly proliferated in cities across the country. T4America’s new Playbook for Shared Micromobility is helping cities find their footing. We walked through the new guide a few weeks ago in an online presentation. (Watch the full presentation here)

Our sincere thanks especially to Francie Stefan (Santa Monica) and Josh Johnson (Minneapolis) for their time and especially for openly sharing about their experiences and lessons learned so far. Here’s a collection of some of the questions we weren’t able to answer during the presentation, compiled from T4America staff with input from our guests. Any mistakes or errors are T4America’s alone. 

GEOFENCING

Is constituent/resident input considered when forming geofencing?

Cities should engage constituents including residents, employees, businesses and visitors when considering the boundaries for operations as well as any specific areas where operations would need to be controlled in a different way, including restrictions on operations, specific parking areas, or speed differentials. Cities and operators together will need to work together to ensure an appropriate level of engagement, communication, and education around these areas.

In Minneapolis, public input was actually the primary consideration for 2018’s geofencing (of two areas), based on feedback received via our 311 system. Going forward in 2019, Minneapolis’ intention is to tie the monitoring interface with daily mapping of 311 complaints and try to more quickly react or anticipate where it is needed.

We have a policy in our city that does not allow any e-bikes or pedal assist bikes on any of our greenways or trails. How can geofencing help us avoid constant issues with e-bike use on the greenways?

At least thus far, geofencing technology for many devices has not always been precise enough for detailed enforcement. Improved equipment could address much of the issue but is not widespread. But geofencing can help alert riders to operating restrictions in specific areas. Larger areas with buffer zones around them like a trail system may be large enough to enable geofenced speed reduction, parking prohibition, or other tools. Robust communications by the city and in-app by operators can help deter riding or usage in restricted areas.

How well did the geofencing technology work? In Santa Monica, specifically in restricting devices from working in specific areas (Santa Monica city vs Santa Monica College).

The geofencing is working well in larger areas like the Marvin Braude Beach Bike Path. That zone is wide enough to enable effective location-based speed reduction down to 5 mph for all scooters. The city works regularly with the operators to ensure that all versions of the devices are set up to reduce speeds, and to ensure that parking limitations are in place.

FEE STRUCTURE

Good protected infrastructure is very important for shared micromobility users, but it’s also a vital element of more sustainable and equitable cities, whoever ultimately owns the vehicles. What is the fair share for micromobility providers to pay, given that more active transportation is already an element of most T4A cities’ transportation goals?

Unfortunately there is not a clear cut answer at this point, however Minneapolis is exploring a research project to determine the fair share across all shared modes. In the meantime, we are thinking about the infrastructure portion of fees related to costs of improving the existing system to more comfortably accommodate new modes through added bike lane protection (delineators), markings/signage, and additional striping for parking zones.

Santa Monica adopted an interim fee that was calculated based on the PROW square footage used by devices. The study looked at the average footprint of a device in the PROW when stationary (bike/scooter/vertical/horizontal), and then applied the per-square foot fee used for outdoor dining in the PROW. The staff report for fee adoption can be found here.

Do you see cities moving from a fee structure to a subsidy structure for these services? Shifting to a higher penalty for SOVs and rewards rather than fees on lower-emission modes.

Given the ongoing debate in cities across the country and how to appropriately tax and levy fees on everything from TNCs to micromobility operators to freight and urban delivery to private vehicle use, it’s still unclear how to best assess the impacts of various transportation users and service providers on our shared infrastructure. Ultimately, T4A would like to see fair user fees supported across all modes that truly represent the positive, and negative, impacts of each user and use case.

What is a reasonable cost that cities can expect to spend as a result of allowing dockless vehicles/shared micromobility to operate in their cities? (Including everything that goes into it: reviewing permitting applications, dealing w/ picking up rogue vehicles if the operator does not, etc.)

These new services are in their infancy and the exact costs that are being borne by cities to administer and manage them are not yet clear. In developing an overall fee structure, cities will need to think holistically to calculate the full and actual costs—including everything from staff time to software management platforms to daily operational needs to outreach and engagement. While cities can take some cues from each other, these costs also vary from city to city given the nature of their regulations, labor costs and other local factors. Conducting a cost analysis study can help determine the true costs.

FLEET SIZE

Should there only be a single operator per community or can there be competition in this arena? Also should a cap be set for the industry or individual operator?

It’s still unclear what an appropriate number of permits or overall fleet size should be as it relates to population, density or other community factors that will appropriately serve individual communities and the city as a whole—while still creating an attractive and profitable market for operators. Between permit caps and fleet size caps, cities should probably focus more on managing the overall fleet size effectively to create a program the whole community can benefit from. Cities should use dynamic, performance based caps that establish clear, utilization-based formulas for the expansion of operator fleets.

Minneapolis is also thinking about—in terms of the differences among companies—whether it’s a different product (such as a sit down scooter) or potential differences in operating structure (vendor hiring practices, fleet activities, etc.) and also how closely vendors align with city goals for transportation and mobility. With rapid growth and continued consolidation in the scooter industry, there is also the idea of maintaining continuity of service, should a vendor be acquired or leave the market.

How did the City of Santa Monica decide on their initial fleet size for providers?
In Minneapolis, any hints on the actual ratios of people/scooter you’re examining? Any preliminary findings you can share on those numbers? Formulas?

Santa Monica interviewed eleven operators before crafting the the scope of the pilot program and Administrative Rules. One of the questions asked was regarding the optimal number of devices with which to start operations of a fleet that would serve the whole city. Answers all hovered around 500 devices, and there was interest in flexibility. That informed the starting point for the pilot program. The city has owned a 500-bike bikeshare fleet since 2015, and it has worked well for the city’s size and layout.

In thinking about ratios of people per scooter, Minneapolis has been discussing and comparing with a variety of other cities, and comparing that to last year’s results based on the population that was generally served by the distribution of scooters. Minneapolis is also talking to some of the vendors who’ve expressed interest in Minneapolis to see how they determine ideal fleet size. Those calculations are still being firmed up but Minneapolis is hoping to use 2019 as the starting point to establish the idea and then evaluate performance from there.

INFRASTRUCTURE

I would love to hear more about the Minneapolis idea of dedicated fees to advance protected bike infrastructure! Did you set up designated parking areas for scooters anywhere? Does the $1/day PROW fee fund something related to streets (or even active transportation infrastructure?)?

Minneapolis has set aside the fees from the 2018 pilot and is thinking about establishing some testing of this idea in 2019 in places with low-hanging fruit such as adding delineators on bikeways (with no current protection) which connect equity focus areas to core parts of the city. Minneapolis is also looking at testing lane markings and dedicated parking, particularly in dense areas with narrow sidewalks. Equally important to this effort will be communication of how and why this is being done.

EQUITY

Were these set up with any particular group in mind? Are these focused on ensuring the best interest of the broad public and of special-needs group?

The was developed as a result of a collaboration between Transportation for America and the participant cities in T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative as well as industry stakeholders including Lime. T4A conducted additional research and held conversations with cities across the country developing regulations and managing pilot programs. The Playbook also builds on the effort by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and their member cities to develop their Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation.

DATA

How do you think about requiring operators to provide public feeds in GBFS format so real-time info is visible to the public and trip-planning apps? These feeds were missing in some early pilot programs, but cities like DC require them from new mobility operators, which are already commonplace for existing systems like Citi Bike, Breeze bikeshare and Nice Ride MN.

This is perhaps a notable difference between a publicly owned and operated system (often through contract) and a service that’s privately owned and operated. Systems owned and managed by public entities (such as those listed in the question above) have mostly been making their data publicly accessible. But, while some cities are requiring data be provided by (private) dockless operators, not many have required it to also be publicly available. So far, private operators have typically been comfortable sharing data with regulators for enforcement and operations, but have been opposed to being required to share their data publicly to the benefit of other private sector companies.

PERFORMANCE METRICS

Are there recommendations for the most effective performance metrics?

Great question! We include a list of potential metrics that cities can use to measure performance in the playbook. But, given that we’re still very early in the development of these services, it’s not clear yet which metrics may be best. And, since each city will likely have different goals and outcomes that are most important to them, it will be important for each city to determine which metrics best track the outcomes or impacts they’re most interested in.

Relatedly, that type of ethos governed our overall approach to the playbook. T4America wanted to provide a framework that any city could use to advance their specific goals, while also recognizing that cities will bring vastly different big-picture goals to the table. Some cities might be more committed to shifting more trips to cleaner modes, for example. The important thing is for cities to understand how measuring performance is (and should be!) connected to accomplishing specific goals, and then to find the metrics that best get them where they want to go.

Question for Minneapolis: How would your population density-based distribution requirement work?

This idea is still being explored in Minneapolis, but essentially it would be establishing a goal ratio of people per scooter, based on population and including commuters as well as students (where applicable) to try to include the groups using scooters regularly. That would then be used to establish some distribution minimums or maximums, to ensure broader distribution and availability. Minneapolis essentially allowed the market to determine distribution in 2018, and we are thinking about how we can make it more equitable and position it as an option for all in 2019 and beyond.

GENERAL

For cities that have conducted RFA/review processes for selecting operator companies, what criteria is used (metrics, performance measures, etc.) have been used to rank, evaluate, and determine which company is most competitive and also the best fit for both the city and the overall community?

Last summer, the San Francisco San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) created its Powered Scooter Share Permit and Pilot Program. Their application process invited proposals that prioritized the city’s concerns around safety, equity and accountability and they rated everything from public safety and user education to equitable access to collaborating with the city. You can find the details, applications and their public review on their website.

The RFA process for Santa Monica is documented on the pilot project Application & Selection Process website.

The enabling ordinance for the pilot project specified some of the selection process, including “Each qualified applicant shall be evaluated based upon objective criteria including: experience; proposed operations plan; financial wherewithal and stability; adequacy of insurance; ability to begin operations in a timely manner; public education strategies; relevant record of the applicant’s or officers’, owners’ or principals’ violations of Federal, State or local law, or rules and regulations; and any other objective criteria established by Administrative Regulation.”

Minneapolis : How is your ridership in winter versus summer?

Minneapolis didn’t get much snow or ice in November prior to the end of the pilot last year, however temperatures did drop in the last 3-4 weeks of the pilot, which caused a steady decline from roughly six trips per scooter per day to about three trips per scooter per day by the last week. At the peak in early summer, we were seeing about seven trips per scooter per day.

Is Santa Monica’s eScooter industry review publicly available? If so, could you share it?

All available program documents are posted here.

What is a typical day-in-the-life of your Code Enforcement Officer?

Code enforcement tasks are both in the field investigating issues and documenting conditions, as well as in the office responding to phone calls, e-mails, and submitted complaints. Time is split roughly 50/50 between field and office, inclusive of work entering reports and evidence into a document management system in the event that a complaint ends up in a hearing. Code staff investigate complaints in the field, and if confirmed will follow up with additional investigations which may lead to citations from violated municipal codes. Once a complaint is confirmed, code staff investigate the problem daily or even weekly until the problem is resolved.

—

Thanks again to our guests for their time. View the full Playbook at playbook.t4america.org

We must address the climate crisis—which requires changing transportation and land use

Good news! Since the time Beth wrote this, we put our money where our mouth is and wrote a Green New Deal for Transportation. You can check it out here.


The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the United States and it’s also the one that federal officials have the most control over with the power of the purse. Yet the Green New Deal is largely devoid of the bold reimagining of federal transportation spending which encourages more roads, more driving, more sprawl, and more emissions.

Yesterday, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Markey (D-MA) introduced the much anticipated Green New Deal resolution. The brains behind the Green New Deal (GND) should be commended for treating the climate crisis as the existential threat it is. As a policy framework, the GND acknowledges the need to use cleaner fuels and invest equitably. But like most conversations around climate change, it gives only a glancing mention to the transportation system and completely ignores the role development patterns play in driving the climate crisis.

Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG), outpacing the power sector and comprising at least 28 percent of the United States’ total GHG emissions. Surface transportation represents 83 percent of transportation emissions, and transportation has now surpassed electrical generation as the top emitter. Pollution from transportation comes from three drivers: the efficiency of vehicles, the carbon content of fuels, and the distance people travel. And transportation emissions keep climbing in spite of the fact that vehicles are getting more efficient and fuels are getting cleaner because people are driving more and further.

Why is that? Our surface transportation program is designed to keep people in their cars. For example, Congress distributes transportation funding to states based on how much fuel is burned. The more gas burned in a state, the more money that state gets. It should hardly surprise us that states have built systems tailored to driving or that this system has pushed people to drive more over the past 60 years. Moreover, the transportation program dedicates 80 percent of those funds to highways and only 20 percent to transit—and the highway funding is guaranteed over multiple years while transit funds are on the chopping block every year. Further, if you build a new highway, a transportation agency has to come up with a 20 percent local match. But if you want to build new transit, you have to come up with at least 50 percent. Is our priority clear yet?

Back in 2012, Congress gave state departments of transportation more flexibility over how they spent federal transportation funds. In exchange, they created a performance management system to establish some accountability over that spending. That system requires states—most of which are organized around building highways and have very little staff focused on less polluting modes of travel—to set targets for their performance in safety, state of repair, and traffic flow. Strangely, Congress allowed them to set targets in these areas to do worse every year. And even in this embarrassingly weak “accountability” system, efficiency measures and GHG emissions were completely left out.

Considering the GND is a statement by Congress about what we should do to make every sector more efficient and less polluting, it would be nice if they would look at their own spending (i.e. federal dollars) and consider aligning it with their climate priorities.

Underlying these transportation challenges is the fact that our local governments are pushing housing further and further from the jobs and services that people need. And they have been doing this since the beginning of the highway era. It turns out that if houses are spread out and placed far away from all the things people need then they will have no choice but to drive more often and further.

While the development rules that create these patterns were set by the federal government in the 1920s, the federal government likes to pretends it is a purely local issue and that they have no role in the solution. Of course, many federal programs today continue to support and even encourage this spread out development that predictably creates long car trips and traffic congestion.

If the supporters of the GND are serious about addressing GHG emissions, they are going to have to spend time on the sector that is going in the wrong direction—a sector they have more direct responsibility for than any other. Without that, it looks like they are throwing stones from a glass house.

A new countdown for USDOT transit funding

As Congress enters negotiations for the next long-term transportation bill and works to pass a new annual budget, our Stuck in the Station resource has been updated to provide a complete list of transit projects awaiting funding in 2019 and track USDOT’s progress towards meeting hard and fast deadlines imposed by an impatient Congress.

Last August, we launched Stuck in the Station to catalogue the Trump administration’s efforts to hamstring federal transit funding. From day one, the administration has proposed to defund the largest federal grant program for new transit projects and system expansions. Congress said “no” and gave them more than $2.3 billion dedicated to getting new projects off the ground, and the political appointees over at the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) decided they just wouldn’t spend any of that money. Maybe they thought no one would notice. Except we did, and we called out their foot dragging with Stuck in the Station.

That was six months ago, at which point the administration had not signed a single new full funding grant agreement in a year, despite being flush with funds appropriated by Congress. Now, after months of increasing pressure from Congress, the public, and inquisitive media outlets in scores of metro areas, USDOT has signed 10 grants, accounting for about 45 percent of their available funds.

That’s progress, but it’s still woefully inadequate. After updating Stuck in the Station to add additional projects in the transit pipeline that have been rated “medium” or higher and are therefore eligible for funding, there are at least 26 projects in 20 communities that are waiting for a piece of the $1.1 billion available right now. And once a new transportation appropriations bill is signed (it’s among the funding bills being held up in the current government shutdown/funding standoff), USDOT will likely receive even more money to get these project rolling—perhaps another $2 billion or more.

Update: a new government spending bill signed by the president on Friday, February 15 adds another $1,491,505,856 in funding for new transportation projects. The new total is reflected in Stuck in the Station.

Every delay means that bulldozers and heavy machinery are sitting idle. Steel and other materials are getting more expensive. Potential construction workers are still waiting to hear about jobs that should have materialized yesterday. And everyday travelers counting on improved transit service are left wondering if their government will ever start doing its job.

Congress took unprecedented steps to require USDOT to act

The administration’s previous actions to slow roll transit funding proved that it couldn’t be trusted to execute transit grants in good faith, so Congress made a bipartisan move to add strings. In the 2018 transportation funding bill, Congress specified that USDOT must spend at least 80 percent of these transit capital funds by the end of the (calendar year) 2019. While USDOT has made progress as they advanced some projects in 2018, they still have hundreds of millions of dollars left to obligate to meet that statutory requirement.

Our updated Stuck in the Station resource now includes a countdown to the end of 2019 and a tracker showing how much USDOT still needs to award before the clock strikes zero, based on the most up-to-date information available about USDOT’s progress.

View Stuck in the Station

It’s important to note that even if USDOT reaches their 80 percent benchmark—which is an open question—that’s only a ‘B-‘ grade. Satisfactory. Whether the administration is willing to believe it or not, transit is a critical solution for looming crises like climate change and burgeoning inequity in our communities.

Failing to use the funds at their disposal would be a dangerous abdication of responsibility by USDOT leaders to carry out the agency’s mission: “ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.”

Government shutdown previewed a future without federal transit funding

With federal employees at the Federal Transit Administration furloughed during the recent record-length shutdown, transit funding wasn’t being distributed and grant/loan programs ground to a halt. New projects were further delayed and transit providers were faced with hard choices about service cuts, showing the vital importance of federal funding for transit.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has been hostile to federal transit funding. The president’s first and second budget requests both called for eliminating critical programs that provide funding to transit—the competitive TIGER program, Capital Investment Grants (CIG) for building new transit and funding major improvements, and intercity passenger rail funding.

Taken to the extreme, eliminating federal transit funding would require shuttering or at least crippling the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) which awards transit grants and ongoing funding. While such a radical position would almost certainly never pass Congress, it has been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office as a possible deficit reduction strategy. And last month, we got a preview of a future without federal transit funding when staff at the Federal Transit Administration were furloughed for over a month.

The FTA doles out approximately $250 million a week in payments and reimbursements to local providers and state governments to support transit—payments that halted during the shutdown. After a 35-day shut down, there is a backlog of about $1 billion. Although the government has been reopened it will likely be months before the staff at FTA are able to clear this backlog. (Similar federal payments to states for road-related funding through the Federal Highway Administration were not interrupted because FHWA staff positions funded by the Highway Trust Fund were not furloughed.)

In many communities—particularly smaller and more rural ones—the local transit system watched as an approaching fiscal cliff left them with little option but to cut routes or shutter the system without federal funding. As Politico noted, “The government shutdown is pushing some of the nation’s small, midsize and rural transit systems to an existential crisis, prompting bus agencies to scale back service, prepare for furloughs, or even contemplate closing their doors entirely.”

In the Wilmington, NC area—still recovering from Hurricane Florence last September—Wave Transit faced service cuts and construction projects were suspended. In Frederick County, MD, TransIT Services was faced with a similar dilemma. In Arizona, at least 27 rural transit providers that offer critical lifelines to residents were left high and dry without federal funding; the prospect of shuttering entirely was a possibility for some transit providers. And in Missouri, OATS Transit wasn’t facing a future service reduction; it reduced service to stretch its emergency funds for as long as possible during the shutdown. The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) has more on the specific impacts for many of those communities.

Some states with the means were able to throw a lifeline to local transit systems by deploying available funding to cover the sudden evaporation of federal funding. But with some federal transit funding already slowed down over the last year, states wouldn’t be able to pick up the slack indefinitely.

For example, the construction of the final leg of the Purple line extension in Los Angeles—which is home to the third largest public transit service by ridership in the country—was impacted by the shutdown as low-interest loans and grants (which would be eliminated if the Trump administration had its way) were held up. And LA Metro had already been waiting for months for a final funding agreement with the FTA for the extension—an agreement that FTA could have signed already—which could not be advanced or signed during the shutdown.

Federal transit funding is critical

Transit is critical to the economies of communities large and small, urban and rural. If residents can’t get to work without transit, then it’s awfully hard to grow a strong local economy. And it’s impossible to build a strong national economy on the backs of weak local economies. Federal transit funding is vital for making this possible.

Furthermore, the construction and maintenance of transit vehicles and facilities supports high-paying, skilled manufacturing jobs across the country. In places like Elkhart, IN and Crookston, MN, the bus and parts manufacturers are a big part of the economy. As we’ve noted, steady federal transit funding is critical to maintain these jobs; they can’t be switched on and off at a whim.

What is clear post-shutdown is that federal funding for transit is critical. This shutdown was a test drive down a path without such funding and that isn’t a future worth pursuing.

Many of the most dangerous states for people walking are planning for more people to die

13 Americans per day were struck and killed while walking from 2008-2017, according to a report released today by our colleagues at the National Complete Streets Coalition. Dangerous by Design 2019 also shows how some of the most dangerous states are, astonishingly, committed to making the problem even worse.

View the rankings and the full report

Over the last decade (2008 through 2017, the most recent year with data available), drivers struck and killed 49,340 people walking in communities large and small across the U.S. To put that into perspective, it’s the equivalent of a jumbo jet full of people crashing—with no survivors—every month. During a period when fatalities for people inside vehicles went down 6 percent, pedestrian fatalities increased by 35 percent. Since the last version of Dangerous by Design was released two years ago, the problem has only gotten worse: 4 out of 5 states and major metro areas have become more dangerous for people walking.

How are states planning to tackle this problem?

More than a third of all states aren’t planning to do anything at all. 18 states—including 10 of the 20 most dangerous for people walking—planned to actually increase the number of people killed while walking or biking from 2017 to 2018.

New requirements from the Federal Highway Administration require state departments of transportation to set performance targets for traffic fatalities and serious injuries and then monitor their progress over time. Back in 2017, states had to update their safety goals for 2018, which included setting target numbers for deaths and serious injuries among people walking, biking, or using other non-motorized forms of travel.

Did states respond by setting ambitious targets and creating accompanying plans for how they’d spend their share of billions in federal transportation dollars to make their streets safer for everyone? Unfortunately, a closer look at these targets reveals just how low the bar is for safety in many states.

18 states established targets for non-motorized deaths and injuries that are higher than the number of people killed or injured in the most recent year of data reported. With billions in 2018 federal transportation dollars available to them to devote to improving safety, more than a third of all states committed to…doing what they did last year—or worse. 10 of these 18 states are among the top 20 most deadly according to Dangerous by Design 2019.

The only “acceptable” number of deaths on our roadways is zero. We can and must raise the bar by requiring states to set safety targets that reduce rather than increase the number of people killed or seriously injured while walking or biking on our streets, ultimately working toward eliminating all traffic-related deaths and serious injuries. However, to make this vision a reality, we need strong federal policy with binding enforceable requirements that hold states to higher safety standards. Dangerous by Design 2019 helps make this case.

For more information on epidemic of people struck and killed while walking and to see the full rankings of the top 20 most dangerous metro areas and states, view the full Dangerous by Design report.

This content, adapted from Dangerous by Design 2019, was co-authored and edited by T4America staff.

T4America’s new “playbook” provides an evolving guide for how cities can manage shared micromobility services

Produced in collaboration with 23 cities, Transportation for America today released a new “Playbook” to help cities think about how to best manage shared micromobility services like dockless bikes, electric scooters, and other new technologies that are rapidly being deployed in cities across the country.

View the complete Playbook at http://playbook.t4america.org

Over just the past few years, shared micromobility services (scooters, bikes and others) have exploded in cities across the country, transforming the mobility landscape and challenging the ability of cities to manage them. Since the initial introduction of dockless bikesharing systems in Seattle in the summer of 2017, dozens of companies have rapidly launched their services in hundreds of cities, served thousands of users and completed millions of rides—in just a little over a year.

“The rapid emergence of these new micromobility services has created new clean and convenient options for people to get around, and they certainly offer a wealth of potential benefits. But there’s still so much to learn,” said Russ Brooks, T4America’s Director of Smart Cities.

“They can help advance city goals related to equity, access to jobs and services, climate, and more. But in order to achieve these goals, cities have a major role to play in thoughtfully managing them to ensure that the benefits accrue equitably to everyone. This Playbook is intended to be an extension of T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative and serve as the start of an ongoing conversation where cities can share their experiences and identify best practices as the results of the first pilot programs across the country come in.”

No cities were even considering the prospect of shared electric scooters two years ago, and now in 2019, hundreds of them are. This incredibly rapid pace of change is unlikely to slow anytime soon, and it highlights the need to create flexible regulatory frameworks that will help cities integrate new technologies and contribute toward their preferred long-term outcomes.

The Shared Micromobility Playbook is intended to help cities better understand the variety of policy levers at their disposal and explores the core components of a comprehensive shared micromobility policy for local governments as they consider how best to manage these services.

“Santa Monica has been at ground zero for the micromobility revolution, having to learn—in real time—what works and what doesn’t as scooters appeared in our city virtually overnight,” said Francie Stefan, Acting Chief Mobility Officer and Assistant Director of Planning & Community Development for the City of Santa Monica.

“But we didn’t have to find our way alone. By being part of the T4America Smart Cities Collaborative, we were able to quickly tap into the experiences of over 20 other cities, including ones who had just gone through the first wave of dockless bikeshare regulation. With e-scooters now operating for a year in Santa Monica, we were happy to share our experiences as T4America produced the Playbook which crystallizes in a systematic way what the key policy questions are, what we can control, and the pros and cons of various approaches to regulating these new services.”

The Playbook was started during a September convening in Pittsburgh, PA with the 23 cities participating in T4America’s yearlong Smart Cities Collaborative. The Playbook was written as a result of that collaboration, additional conversations with cities across the country working on regulations, industry stakeholders including Lime, and research conducted by T4America.

The convening of the Smart Cities Collaborative in Pittsburgh, PA where the Playbook was started with feedback from staff representing 23 cities.

“Whether docked or dockless bikes, electric bikes or scooters, the pace of change with these new mobility offerings has been astonishing. In Minneapolis, we’re not just trying to keep up, we’re working to shape these services to provide safe, reliable, and sustainable mobility options for all people,” said Josh Johnson, Advanced Mobility Manager for the Minneapolis Department of Public Works. “Thankfully, we don’t have to try to figure this out on our own. Being part of producing the Playbook with T4America and other cities in the same boat has required us to think through these issues in a deliberate way, while remaining proactive and keeping our ideal vision of mobility in Minneapolis in the front of our minds.”

The Playbook is divided into eight policy sections:

General Provisions - Operations Equipment & Safety - Parking & Street Design - Equity - Communications & Community Engagement - Data Metrics

Each section identifies key policy areas to reflect on, highlights the various options in each policy area, reviews the pros and cons of each level of action, and provides case studies of cities that have enacted certain policies. Sections also include suggested national standards across cities, areas for cities to make local choices, and key considerations when deliberating policy options along with recommendations.

T4America will continue to refine and expand the Playbook as we learn more about the ongoing results of the efforts to manage these services and ultimately the impact that shared micromobility is having in our communities.

View the Playbook at playbook.t4america.org.

Reminder: Join us on Monday, January 28th at 3:00 p.m. EST for an online session explaining the Playbook, how to use it, and how members of the Collaborative helped shape the content.

REGISTER NOW

One more reason buses are cool (literally)

Just before the end of 2018, Transportation for America traveled to Thermo King’s headquarters in Bloomington, MN to get an up close look at the economic impact of public transportation dollars on Minnesota’s manufacturing jobs. Joined by several state and local leaders, Thermo King shared with the group how their high-quality HVAC systems fit into the public transit supply chain.

That welcome rush of cool air when you step onto a bus in the midst of a summer heatwave? You may be experiencing the comfort of a Thermo King cooling system. Back in 1955, Thermo King developed their first air conditioning unit for passenger buses and have been supplying HVAC systems for buses and rail cars ever since. We visited Thermo King’s headquarters in Bloomington, MN to see where they test and design their products.

We worked with the Minneapolis Regional Chamber to bring together several state leaders including Representative Andrew Carlson, Representative Jon Koznik, and Senator Melissa Wiklund, as well as local leaders like Bloomington City Council Member Tim Busse, and members of Bloomington Chamber of Commerce and East Metro Strong. The discussion focused on how federal, state, and local money invested in public transportation supports and creates jobs in Minnesota and across the country.

Investment in public transit not only supports about 500 jobs at Bloomington’s Thermo King facility, but more than 15,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide. Many of those manufacturers and suppliers rely heavily on a trained and consistent workforce. Without stable funding from state and federal partners, these jobs might be lost. That’s a very real threat given that the Trump administration has repeatedly called for eliminating all federal funding for transit capital improvements. And many state governments are quick to cut transit funding when budgets get tight. The transit supply chain and the effects of those cuts aren’t often well understood.

The bottom line is that when we invest in public transit, we are investing in well-paying jobs in communities across America. From assembling busses in Crookston, MN to producing bus seats in Elkhart, IN, or manufacturing rail tracks in Cleveland, OH the public transit supply chain is vast and relies on tens of thousands of hard-working Americans across the country.

“We count on T4America to lead at the national level”

“If Transportation for America doesn’t do what they do at the national scale, we would be in trouble at the local level. We count on them to lead at the national level and equip us with the knowledge and expertise to do the same locally.”

“T4America is the only national group that really pulls everyone together in the same room: advocates, elected leaders, engineers, planners, researchers, transit agencies, safety experts, the business community…”

Those were just two comments I heard over the last week while we were in Atlanta for the last 2018 meeting of our Smart Cities Collaborative and Capital Ideas state policy conference. 

Will you help make more of this work possible in 2019 with a small donation to cap off the year?

Why support our transportation work in 2019? We can think of a few reasons, but a big one is that we’re headed into another reauthorization of the federal transportation law next year. Unlike the negotiations over the last bill in 2015, there is no more money in the congressional piggy bank to keep the status quo limping along.

None.

We currently have a gas tax that covers only about 70 percent of the transportation spending that Congress has approved. Do you remember what happened the last time we faced this situation? We do, because we successfully led the effort to kill a plan by the House of Representatives to end all federal funding for transit.

This administration has already twice asked Congress to do the same for expanding & improving transit, though Congress has thus far twice rejected those requests with a bipartisan vote.

But when Congress is faced with a gas tax that doesn’t cover the bills, it is almost inevitable that someone will start looking at transit, multimodal projects, or complete streets as the so-called “extras” or “easier” places to cut.

And, among other issues, who will hold Congress’ feet to the fire (and has been already this year) to ensure that the next transportation law isn’t 100 percent silent on the potential impacts of automated vehicles to our communities, as the 2015 law was?

That’s why T4America is here at Smart Growth America. And we know that local advocates and leaders are counting on us to do what we’ve always done.

Help us stand in the gap.

Make a tax-deductible, end-of-year gift to Smart Growth America to support our transportation work and get a free gift.

Thanks for your support.

Donate to T4America and Smart Growth America

 

Make an end of year gift and then, if you missed them, read our reflections and lessons learned from two great events we held last week in Atlanta: Capital Ideas 2018 and the last 2018 meeting of our Smart Cities Collaborative.

Seven things to know about our last Smart Cities Collaborative meeting of 2018

Last week in Atlanta, Georgia we wrapped up our second cohort of the Smart Cities Collaborative with the fourth meeting of 2018. Once again, staff representing cities, counties, transit agencies and other public sector agencies from 23 cities gathered together to share their experiences and learn how others are using technology and new mobility to become better places to live. Here are seven things we learned or heard last week.

1. Atlanta has a tremendous amount of momentum and potential

As someone said during the week at one point, it’s much harder to affect significant change if you’re not growing, and Atlanta (both the city and the region) have been booming. In fact, after losing population for nearly thirty years, the rate of population growth in the city proper has been near the top of the list within the (massive) region over the last few years. Which also means that the city and region alike are struggling to keep those people moving and well-connected to jobs and opportunity. Atlanta City Councilman Amir Farohki and Planning Director Tim Keane shared a little of the Atlanta story and how they’re working hard to keep people and residents at the center of their city’s efforts to improve mobility and access.

Atlanta Councilman Amir Farokhi, left, and Planning Director Tim Keane speaking to the Collaborative in Atlanta.

One of the best illustrations of that effort is the Atlanta BeltLine, an unprecedented and multi-decade project to add trails, parks and transit to old railroad corridors that form a ring around the core of the city. We were fortunate enough to get out of our meeting space in downtown (provided by the Atlanta Regional Commission) long enough to get a terrific tour of a small portion of the BeltLine, and it’s truly a transformative, people-centered project that will have immense long-term benefits for the city.

Touring the Atlanta BeltLine with staff from Atlanta Beltline near the Ponce City Market on the city’s east side, and on bottom right, touring a just-opened portion of the west side trail with the portion set aside and prepped for transit on the left side of that photo.

2. This was the last meeting of the second cohort of the Collaborative

This meeting wrapped up our second yearlong cohort of the Collaborative, putting a bow on a year that kicked off with 23 cities in Denver way back in the spring, traveled to Seattle over the summer, and then met in Pittsburgh near the beginning of the fall. We’re planning to reflect a little more later on in another post about a year spent learning with these cities, but suffice it to say we covered an immense amount of ground over a net total of only about a full week of time together, and we will miss working together with them every few months.

3. Arcadis sponsored the meeting and made an interesting offer to the cities

Data. Daaaaaaaaata. We all hear about it nonstop.

And it’s true: new technologies and mobility options are providing a wealth of detailed, real-time transportation data to planners and managers across the country. This is creating new opportunities to analyze historical data and better measure operations, understand network conditions and trends, and ultimately help cities make better decisions about how to manage their transportation networks.

But, despite all this wonderful new data, most cities haven’t been able to fully realize its benefits, update their models or turn it into meaningful action. It’s certainly possible to use this data to better understand what’s actually happening on the ground with present and future travel demand, but it’s a tough job for any city—especially the small and mid-sized cities—to do this on their own.

Arcadis, a large global planning and design firm that sponsored this meeting, came with an interesting proposal: They offered a three-month data analytics pilot project of nearly any kind to Collaborative cities for free. But they don’t want to just roll ahead with an idea of their own—they wanted to collaborate and work together with cities to figure out what would be most helpful. So their team, and others from Sam Schwartz Engineering, HR&A and Cityfi, met with the cities in small groups for a half-day to better understand their specific challenges and identify key areas to include in potential data analytics pilots, craft the scope for coordinated pilots across multiple cities, and highlight a few options for differing outcomes in each community.

4. We heard a lot about tangible projects happening on the ground right now

The Collaborative has always intended to be about action and real, tangible efforts to improve mobility and experiment with new technologies and tools. While a lot of our time was taken up with some big picture issues, we also heard short presentations from other cities that are forging ahead about how specific pilot projects are faring, with the hopes of sharing lessons and experience with the other cities that might want follow—or chart their own path.

Dan Hoffman from Gainesville, Florida shared about the automated vehicle shuttle pilot that they’re hoping to get rolling in early 2019. He explained the goals of the pilot, where and how it will operate and all of the hurdles they’ve cleared along the way to try to put a real AV shuttle on the ground connecting downtown and the University of Florida, providing a useful test case for other cities hoping to obtain a NHTSA waiver for AV testing or how to partner effectively with the state.

Robin Aksu from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation also joined us to speak on mobility hubs and how their project is progressing. Robin shared what they’re hoping to accomplish by creating mobility hubs, the focus on primary and satellite hubs and how the design will reflect those differences, and how they’re approaching implementation along with communications, marketing, and their community outreach program.

Mark de la Vergne from Detroit, Michigan joined us to share more about Night Shift and some of their other transit programs. Night Shift is specifically designed for late night and service workers to help connect them to transit and improve access to jobs. Mark shared about the process his team has gone through to conduct engagement and outreach in their local community to not only design the service, but ensure it meets the community’s ongoing needs. Detroit’s pilot is an excellent example of how cities can think about improving access from the ground up with the user’s perspective in mind and without a predetermined solution.

5. Mobility as a Service will definitely be one of 2019’s hottest topics — but it won’t end there

We’ve talked a lot here about Mobility as a Service and that this is where most of the companies like Uber or Lyft or Lime are ultimately headed: not a provider of one specific mode, but a mobility provider allowing multiple options for however you choose to get around. It’s likely part of the reason why Lyft bought Motivate and Uber bought Jump (both are bikesharing companies), and why we’ll continue to see more moves like that in the future.

So what will it mean to roll all these services into a single platform offering multiple modes of travel. Who would control the data? What would the role of the city be in helping to plan for travel demand? How would cities ensure that it improves access for everyone?

We had two representatives from the public side (Warren Logan from San Francisco and Alex Pazuchanics from Pittsburgh) discuss the topic with two reps from the private side (Lilly Shoup from Lyft and Matt Cole from Cubic.) And the back-and-forth that ensued (moderated by Cityfi’s Gabe Klein) was a terrific, open, and honest discussion that pulled no punches.

5. LADOT’s Mobility Data Specification is already shifting the conversation

There have been a lot of conversations over the past year about LA DOT’s Mobility Data Specification (MDS) and how cities can better use data to actively manage their operations. Starting with shared active transportation services operating in Los Angeles, Marcel Porras from LADOT shared more about their short- and long-term goals along with the topic of how cities manage the right-of-way today physically and how they will need to manage it in a digital future.

Apparent from the beginning of the conversation was significant interest from the participants to use MDS in their communities to accomplish similar goals. And, there was also a stated desire to work with Los Angeles to further co-create and build out MDS to help manage the other challenges they’re facing such as managing curb space, carsharing, ridesourcing and eventually automated vehicles.

One of the most poignant parts of the conversation was a deep dive into how MDS is being administered and governed today, how cities might work together to evolve MDS into a national standard, and how a governance structure might take shape that could foster its development long into the future. It was one of the best conversations we’ve had in the Collaborative this year and highlighted the growing need for cities to evolve their structures, capacities and capabilities as data management becomes paramount for mobility management.

6. We turned the tables and tossed the private companies into the Shark Tank

Cities get pitched all day long from private companies and providers. But it’s rarely in a forum where these maxed-out city staff can really engage in a thoughtful way and certainly not one where they can benefit from the expertise of their colleagues from other cities. So we tried to turn the tables a little bit and take a page from TV by creating the Smart Cities Shark Tank where private companies were given ten minutes to pitch a panel of reps from a range of cities about Mobility as a Service and curb space management solutions, and then take some tough questions from the panel as they tried to assess whether it would be a good fit for their cities. And then the panels huddled to evaluate the presentations and pick a “winner” with the best pitch for the cities.

Photos from the Smart Cities Shark Tank, including a picture of the location at Monday Night Garage on the BeltLine in West End.

The night was a lot of fun but it was also a useful exercise that forced the private companies to meet the cities on their terms and also allowed the cities to tap into the expertise of their colleagues from across the country—something they don’t typically get to do when one of these companies shows up in their office with a pitch.

Thanks to the International Parking & Mobility Institute for helping host the Shark Tank.

7. Year two is done, and we’re already looking ahead to year three

It’s hard to believe we’re already wrapping up the second yearlong cohort of the Collaborative, but we’re already looking ahead to another cohort of cities for year three in 2019.

We would never have been able to make the Collaborative happen without the hard work and leadership of Russ Brooks, who has been T4America’s Director of Smart Cities for the past three years (and has been part of T4America in some fashion for seven years in total.) He helped conceive of the program and pull together the initial group of cities that met on a fairly surreal day in Minneapolis after the 2016 presidential election, and he’s contributed his blood, sweat, and tears to build the relationships required to bring almost 150 participants from 27 different cities together throughout the first two years—and the private industry—to the table for such a productive and useful forum.

We’re especially grateful for the representatives from the 23 cities who came to one or more of these meetings this year and contributed their time and their wisdom and made the Collaborative, well, truly collaborative!

We’re actively looking for the next Director of Smart Cities to guide year three, and we’re hoping for someone with some experience on the ground within a city or agency to run the show. Read the job description here.

The second cohort of the Smart Cities Collaborative at our first 2018 meeting in Denver, Colorado.

Kicking off the first year of the Collaborative in Minneapolis on November 7, 2016.

States that take chances get rewarded, and six other things we learned this year at Capital Ideas 2018

We’re fresh back from Capital Ideas 2018 in Atlanta, and as in years past, this year’s conference was an incredible alchemy of passion, knowledge, inspiration, and amazing people from around the country. For those of you who weren’t able to make it to Atlanta, here are seven things that we learned.

Left photo: Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, MO, right, one of Capital Ideas’ keynote speakers, talks to Toks Omishakin of the Tennessee DOT, and T4America chair John Robert Smith. Right: During a keynote on day two, Rusty Roberts, VP for Government Affairs at Brightline, shared his company’s ambitious plans for private passenger rail currently unfolding in Florida.

1) States that innovate, try new things, and take chances, get rewarded

There’s a common thought when it comes to new mobility or improving transit that it’s really only about cities. While we certainly think cities have a major role to play (see our Smart Cities Collaborative!), the role of the state is still vital.

The City of Gainesville, FL is on the cusp of launching a new automated vehicle shuttle pilot project to connect the University of Florida with downtown Gainesville via an automated driverless shuttle. Dan Hoffman, Gainesville’s city manager, shared their progress to date but made one thing clear: They would never be able to make this happen without the state of Florida’s involvement…and money, with the state contributing over $1 million. But it’s also worth noting that the state isn’t trying to run the pilot project—they’re collaborating to help a city run their own pilot. And the lessons that Dan and his city learn will be shared with the state as they collaborate with other cities. That’s a great recipe for success.

Sometimes states try new things and lose before they taste the eventual reward. But the smart ones learn from the experience. In Georgia, Atlanta bounced back from a painful failure to raise new revenue for transportation at the ballot box in 2012. They dusted themselves off, figured out why they failed, rebuilt trust in the transit agency, and then built vital new relationships with the state (and especially with legislators) that paved the way for a successful ballot measure effort in 2016 that raised money for billions in new transit projects in metro Atlanta.

Suburban Gwinnett County has rejected ballot measures to join the MARTA regional transit system multiple times over the last few decades. However, this March they will vote on a measure to finally join the MARTA system and dramatically expand transit service in a rapidly changing county where 25 percent of the population was born outside of the United States.

While others may have written off their state legislatures, the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the rest of their coalition did the hard work required between 2012 and 2016 to turn skeptical state legislators into outspoken champions for transit. Michael Sullivan from the American Council of Engineering Companies in Georgia so aptly summarized at the end of this panel discussion: never assume that your opponent today has to be your opponent in the future.

As Commissioner Charlotte Nash from Gwinnett County noted on the panel, their work paid off: action by that same legislature is enabling her county to go to the ballot this March to raise new funds for transit. Never write off your opponent or a skeptic.

States that refuse to take chances might avoid some failure, but they are also likely to avoid great success.

Our sincere thanks to Dave Williams from the Metro Atlanta Chamber for his commitment to transportation in the region and to taking selfies whenever he moderates a panel for T4America. From left, Dave Williams, Michael Sullivan, Georgia State Rep. Kevin Tanner, and Gwinnett County Commissioner Charlotte Nash.

2) “Transit access is the #1 factor in upward economic mobility”

Our opening keynote speaker on the first day summed things up when it comes to the “why” for improving access to transit:

As a different speaker would explain later, exactly how we measure access matters a great deal, but is there anything more that needs to be said? If we want to lift up those on the lower socio-economic rungs of our communities, then improving transit service and expanding access to it should always be a primary goal.

3) We are swimming in data, but very little of it has anything to do with the people who use the system.

A few audible cheers went up in the room when Stephanie Pollack, the Secretary of MassDOT, made that statement during an incredible panel moderated by T4America director Beth Osborne about the role of the state in new mobility services. She was joined by Commissioner Polly Trottenberg of the NYC DOT and Lilly Shoup, the Senior Director of Transportation Policy for Lyft. (More on that in a moment.)

On the second day, we took a deep dive into measuring accessibility and how so many of our metrics and data poorly assess what really matters. Nick Donohue, assistant secretary of the Virginia DOT, shared a story about the oft-cited Travel Time Index that measures congestion, and how it’s so far removed from the experience of real people and what really matters to them.

Congestion measures treat every road the same and have an implicit bias: always moving as fast as possible is the preferred goal. But streets are all about creating a place and a framework to create and capture value—not just a place for vehicles to move fast. This difference is often best illustrated with an image:

4) We don’t always agree with one another, but we have to keep working together

The panel discussion on new mobility definitely got “spirited!” Sec. Pollack is a provocative quote machine, but we also had a representative from Lyft sitting a few feet away from the person charged with keeping America’s biggest city moving. And as Commissioner Polly Trottenberg noted, congestion and VMT are both up in NYC while transit ridership is down since TNCs like Uber and Lyft arrived on the scene.

Though there were some (entertaining!) disagreements on this panel, the most important lesson we learned was that at the end of the day, many of these companies do want to try and accomplish the same things that the cities do, and we have to find a way to work together. As an example, Lyft’s long-term goals are to have fleets of vehicles in cities that are shared, electric, and automated, which certainly dovetail with the goals of a city like New York, as described by Commissioner Polly Trottenberg.

Ultimately it’s more productive for state or local officials to find ways to work together with private industry rather than against one another. And as Sec. Pollack noted, we have a lot of work to do to make more of these trips shared, and we won’t be able to make that happen without the private providers at the table.

5) You have to be ready and willing to listen

If you show up to a meeting about a transportation project or issue, you’ll have to talk about more than just the item at had: everything that came before you will be on the table. For example, in the public sector, you might have to address and resolve your agency’s past sins in a community first, even if the project proposed is an attempt to try and rectify the damage. As Sec. Pollack said, state DOTs might have to do something radical: listen to the people that they serve.

Our first panel on the second day was focused on making development around transit more equitable. Carol Wolfe from the City of Tacoma—which is in the midst of a rail extension through their city—noted that all too often planners and officials forget that there’s already a “place” that needs to be kept at the center of the process.

And it’s a little thing, but when an agency or planning firm makes renderings of future development, do they incorporate existing places and people? Does the community see themselves in the picture, or do the renderings include the same generic details as every other rendering?

6) People are hungry to exchange information and learn from one another

As we did in 2014 and 2016, we spent the first afternoon in roundtable discussions. Participants got to choose two of 12 topics, sit down with an expert, and then have a completely open-ended discussion with them and a dozen others interested in the same thing. These roundtables are one of the best features of Capital Ideas, and many of them are just a starting point for a longer exchange of information that will continue for weeks or months to come.

This year, our roundtables covered the Smart Scale project funding process in Virginia, the mileage-based user fee pilot in Washington State, the deployment of automated vehicles, strategies to compete for competitive federal transportation grant funds, the Metropolitan Planning Council’s Transit Means Business Report, and the Partnership for Southern Equity’s “Opportunity Deferred” report, among many others.

7) Atlanta is a wonderful city with lots of momentum (including on the soccer front!)

It may have partially been due to the fact that Atlanta United, the city’s Major League Soccer team, was preparing to host MLS Cup last weekend and beat the Portland Timbers in front of 73,000 screaming crazy fans for the city’s first championship since the Braves in 1995, but the energy in the city was palpable.

The capital of the New South has made tremendous progress. It’s a terrific city loaded with momentum and possibility, within a region that is making huge strides to invest in transportation and capitalize on their numerous walkable downtowns. All of this is occurring inside a state that has done a complete about-face on the importance of transit for their economic future.

We wrapped up the conference with two concurrent tours, one of a selection of TOD sites in the city with representatives from MARTA, and the second of the ongoing BeltLine project of trails and transit around the city with representatives from Atlanta BeltLine and the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy. To close things out, here’s a short thread from the BeltLine tour collected in a Twitter moment:

Participants: Have a story to share? Learn something new? Reach out to us at info@t4america.org. All photos by Stephen Lee Davis, T4America director of communications.

Our sincere thanks to our sponsors and host committee for making Capital Ideas possible. And to our many participants from around the country who came to Atlanta and hopefully took some helpful information—and inspiration—back home with them.

SPONSORS

 

Promotional Partner

Federal transit funding delays grab headlines across the country

President Donald Trump reportedly consumes a lot of media, so what better way to get the administration’s attention than by going to the media. Since we launched Stuck in the Station this summer—which catalogues the egregious (and wholly avoidable) delays in transit funding under this administration—dozens of media outlets across the country have covered the news.

Some of the outlets are those you might expect, which regularly cover transportation and urbanism issues. Streetsblog USA declared that the Federal Transit Administration has “gone rogue.” CityLab cited the “splashy countdown clock” in cataloguing the inexplicable delays to major transit projects.

Understandably, reporters and editorial boards in cities with transit projects on the “awaiting funding” list also are taking a strong interest. News outlets in Tampa, FL, Tempe, AZ, Sacramento, CA, Atlanta, GA, and New York, NY all questioned how the delays will ultimately affect long-awaited projects in their cities, and the taxpayers who are already committed to footing half or more of the bill in most cases. In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times highlighted the central role of the Purple Line Subway extension in the 2028 Olympics. The line will eventually connect athletes housed at UCLA with sporting venues across the city, if it’s completed on time. But due to funding delays, “whether the project meets its deadlines is in the hands of the Trump administration.”

“But local and state dollars cannot replace federal funding. Nor should they. The federal government has a shared national interest in a country that’s safe and well-connected, and where people and goods move efficiently. The Purple Line subway is the perfect example. It will help move people through one of the country’s most congested corridors.”

–The Los Angeles Times.

Similarly, the Star Tribune editorial board (in Minneapolis, MN) pleaded with the Trump administration to approve funding for a major light rail extension before civil contractor bids were set to expire. At this point, according to the paper, the only thing holding back the project is the lack of expected federal funding. “A longer delay would almost certainly mean higher costs and could unravel the project’s painstakingly woven funding arrangements, achieved through years of arduous political exertion by jurisdictions along the proposed 14.5-mile line,” the editorial board notes.

None of the cities mentioned here have received grant agreements from the USDOT as of this writing, leaving the future of their projects (and years of hard work) in limbo. Los Angeles and Minneapolis both received Letters of No Prejudice—though such letters do not guarantee any future federal funding—and have begun construction. In essence, these two cities are taking multibillion-dollar gambles, though ones predicated on the expectation that USDOT will continue approving transit grants as they always have through the last decade or two.

President Trump has been in office for almost two years now, but the administration has only spent a measly 23 percent of the $2.3 billion that Congress appropriated to fund new transit capital projects since 2017. (Though USDOT has reportedly approved the Lynwood light rail project in the Seattle region, no final funding agreement has yet to be signed or money sent out the door. That could happen before the end of the year and would represent the first multi-year, big-ticket full funding grant agreement advanced solely by this administration.)

While the president himself hasn’t responded to any of this media coverage—based on his tweets at least—USDOT definitely has. During a recent speaking engagement, Jane Williams, the top administrator for the department that oversees the transit grant program, seemed irritated by all the coverage the funding delays have been getting. “It seems to occupy 80 percent of the attention,” Williams said, “it is the elephant in the room.”

But when you’re failing to do your job, people, including the media, tend to notice. So get to work.

Ten things to know about USDOT’s new framework to guide the future of automated vehicles

The USDOT’s newly released policy guidance for automated vehicles is consistent with Congress’ attempts to limit regulations and give private industry carte blanche to operate mostly in secret with little public oversight.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0, the Department’s latest effort to try and describe a plan for integrating automated vehicles. This updated version of 2017’s Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety fails to answer basic questions, leaves local communities with few tools to safely integrate this technology onto their roads, and puts private industry in control of what data local communities can access about automated vehicles.

This policy guidance is voluntary, but it does start to provide a big-picture view of how USDOT is approaching this emerging industry at the same time that Congress is trying to pass their first comprehensive law to regulate it. Here are 10 key things you need to know about this guidance:

1) USDOT is doing nothing to help states and cities receive vital data on AV operations

Local governments recognize that in order to properly manage their roadways, ensure safety for all, and provide service to the residents who face the most transportation barriers (low-income people, communities of color, and people with disabilities), they need data on operations and travel patterns of automated vehicles. Yet this guidance is virtually silent on this critical issue, only restating the principles outlined in 2.0 for developing “voluntary data exchanges.”

This is simply unacceptable.

Without a robust federal framework to set expectations and requirements for sharing data, the likeliest outcome is that local communities will be pitted against each other in a race to the bottom to attract AV companies by enacting little to no regulation, thus ensuring the public will stay in the dark about AV deployment on their local roadways, leaving millions of Americans in harm’s way. Such was the case with Arizona’s move to create a highly permissive and opaque regulatory climate, where a pedestrian was struck and killed by an automated Uber earlier this year.

2) Public safety officials will be left in the dark

Tacked onto the very end of the guidance is a section in which USDOT encourages “engagement” with first responders and public safety officials. However, once again, the guidance does not provide any instruction or best practices for how manufacturers, communities, and public safety officials should engage with one another. Further, without access to data, public safety officials will have zero idea about how these vehicles are operating and will likely be unable to fully execute their responsibilities.

3) It ignores the impact on land use and curb space in cities

The guidance contains 120 words on two of the most pressing impacts of automated vehicles for cities: land use and curb space. Continuing with the theme, the guidance tells cities to consider the implications of automated vehicles on the built environment, but doesn’t provide cities any of the tools (like data) necessary to do so.

4) Automation will almost certainly increase congestion, but that’s just a problem for cities to figure out on their own

The guidance contains even fewer words—only 85!—on the congestion impacts of automated vehicles. USDOT correctly notes that automated vehicles can create an entirely new problem of zero occupancy vehicle trips and potentially drive riders away from transit, further increasing vehicle miles traveled and road congestion, but does little to even start a discussion about how to deploy AVs without increasing congestion.  A study from the SFCTA released just a few weeks ago noted that the overwhelming majority of new congestion on San Francisco County’s streets are due to ridesourcing companies, the same companies most eager to deploy AVs on a wide scale. We are working hard through our Smart Cities Collaborative to help communities plan for integrating automated technology without increasing congestion, but communities need USDOT to provide more than a one-paragraph acknowledgement that there may be an issue.

NTSB investigators in Arizona examining the automated Volvo operated by Uber that killed a pedestrian. Photo by the NTSB.

5) Safety assessments are still voluntary—and not that helpful

Previous iterations of federal AV guidance encouraged manufacturers to provide “voluntary safety assessments” to help build “public trust, acceptance, and confidence through transparent testing and deployment of ADSs [automated driving systems].”

If you tell your kids that making their beds is voluntary, do you think most will still go to the trouble? Only a few of the companies that are testing have even met this low bar, and most are just glossy marketing docs with little to no substantive information. This new guidance encourages manufacturers to make these voluntary safety assessments public, but if a manufacturer fails to provide a useful assessment and make it easy for the public to find and understand, there are no repercussions. It’s also important to note that the template from NHTSA isn’t really asking for the kind of information that would be most helpful for the public.

6) USDOT will adapt definitions for “driver” and ”operator” to incorporate driverless vehicles, but crucially fails to define “performance.”

This action, while a potentially useful step that recognizes a changing world, does not address an even bigger question about terminology: how to interpret the word “performance”. Why is the definition of this single word important? The AV legislation currently being considered by Congress (The AV Start Act) would preempt most state and local laws and regulations that affect the “design, construction, or performance” of a highly automated vehicle or automated driving system.

“Performance” has traditionally referred to the mechanical operation of a vehicle or vehicle component. But now, given that the driver of AVs will be both mechanical and software-based in nature, the lack of a definition for “performance” in the AV START Act (or any other federal law for motor vehicles) will likely lead to lengthy and costly legal fights over the definition and whether or not proposed state and local laws or regulations will affect it.

While USDOT acknowledges that they want to “strike the appropriate balance between the federal government’s use of its authorities…and the State and local authorities’ use of their traditional powers,” the guidance provides no indication of how USDOT’s views on what the appropriate roles are for federal, state, and local governments. The lack of clarity is a significant concern for local communities who are left unsure if current control over their roads will, in the end, apply to this new technology.

7) USDOT says it already has the authority to set testing and regulatory standards for vehicles configured without human controls. What?

If true, this begs the question: why do we even need federal AV legislation? This guidance states that, for high-level and full automation, “NHTSA’s current safety standards constitute an unintended regulatory barrier to innovation” and that, “in an upcoming rulemaking, NHTSA plans to seek comment on proposed changes to particular safety standards to accommodate automated vehicle technologies and the possibility of setting exceptions to certain standards.” If USDOT feels that they (through NHTSA) already have this authority to set safety standards for AVs, why are the House and Senate even considering legislation? The guidance is completely silent on further explaining this critical topic for local communities and the public.

8) USDOT wants to update the federal manual that governs street design to “take into account” automated driving

As with anything, the devil is in the details. AV 3.0 provides no details on when or how the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) will be updated, only that the FHWA is conducting research. As previously stated, this guidance does nothing to provide communities with data about how automated vehicles are performing, so how would communities or even the FHWA have the foggiest idea what kinds of updates are required for the MUTCD to incorporate AVs in a productive and safe way?

9) The guidance advises state legislatures to adopt common terminology and assess roadway conditions

USDOT really leaves states holding the bag with this one. The guidance tells states to use voluntary, consensus-based terminology when discussing automated vehicles. While it provides an example, in practice, it allows 50 states to select 50 different ways of discussing this new technology.  In the next paragraph, the guidance states that “states may want to assess roadway readiness for automated vehicles, as such assessments could help infrastructure for automated vehicles, while improving safety for drivers today.”  How would states or cities have any idea how to “assess roadway readiness” considering that the guidance (as with the AV START Act,) completely and utterly fails to provide communities with any data about how and where automated vehicles are operating?

10) Complete Streets get a welcome shout out, but only in the “transit” section.

We were pleased to see that this guidance recognized the value of complete streets policies in improving safety. However, the guidance refers to these  policies only in the context of transit, in encouraging transit providers to review complete streets policies when planning for automation. Complete streets are a proven tool to make streets and cities safer, with or without transit or automation, and the most potentially dangerous impacts of AVs will be felt by those who are not driving and attempting to share the road with them while walking and biking, as well as taking transit.

Small groups, big questions: 12 roundtable conversations at Capital Ideas 2018

Capital Ideas 2018 will be full of inspiration and best practices. But even with a speaker lineup full of national experts, we know that we won’t possibly have all the answers to every community’s challenges.

That’s where our roundtable conversations come in. On the first afternoon of the conference, we’ll have two small-group sessions to go deep on a few select topics. These focused conversations will allow participants to dig in on questions they want new perspective on, and ask honest questions of people who have done it.

Here’s a look at the 12 ideas we’ll examine during this part of the conference:

Roundtable 1: Creating an Objective Scoring Process to Select Projects
Virginia is using an objective framework to evaluate transportation projects, prioritize investments, and measure results. This transparency and accountability can help build between among taxpayers and decision-makers, and allows states to direct limited funds to the projects with the biggest return on investment. Hear how Virginia is doing it and ask questions about your own efforts. With Nick Donohue, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 2: Pursuing Funding Through US DOT’s BUILD Program
The East Coast Greenway Alliance has worked with seven states to submit eleven projects totaling over $135 million for BUILD 2018 grants from USDOT. Get ideas for strategy, tactics, and lessons learned for future BUILD applications. With Dennis Markatos-Soriano, Director, and Niles Barnes, Deputy Director, East Coast Greenway Alliance.

Roundtable 3: How to Add New Mobility Services to Transportation Systems
How are cities incorporating new mobility services into their transportation systems, in ways that support the city’s transportation priorities? Learn how cities can use funding, regulation, and collaboration to manage new mobility services. With Andrew Glass Hastings, Senior Mobility Strategist, Remix, and Russ Brooks, Smart Cities Director, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 4: Trails Transform America
Helping states fund a 21st-century, balanced transportation system that includes trail networks as essential community assets connecting people to vital opportunities. What’s the best way to measure these projects’ impact on the communities they serve? Learn best practices from around the country. With Ken Bryan, Florida State Director, and Andrew N. Dupuy, Manager of Policy Outreach, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy; and John Robert Smith, Chairman, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 5: Harnessing Technology Disruption in Mobility Systems
Georgia DOT and The Ray partnered to build a solar-powered stretch of Interstate 85. Learn how they connected capabilities, pollution remediation, life safety, and more. With Faye DiMassimo, FAICP, Deloitte; Allie Kelly, Executive Director, The Ray; and Andrew Heath, State Traffic Engineer, Georgia Department of Transportation.

Roundtable 6: Public-Private Partnerships in Transit
New mobility services can be deployed in ways that extend transit service to more people. Learn about how new technologies can be combined with innovative performance-based contracting models to deliver higher quality and more cost-effective service to riders. With Zack Wasserman, Head of Global Business Development, VIA, and Scott Goldstein, Policy Director, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 7: Shifting to a Roadway User Charge
Pricing road usage has traditionally been done via tolling of a specific road or bridge. But new ideas around pricing are considering ways it can serve as a broader, foundational revenue sources for roads, similar to the gas tax. Washington State has had a Road Usage Charge Assessment underway for several years and launched a year-long pilot this year. In the pilot, 2000 vehicles from across the state are testing different methods of recording and reporting road usage. Learn new ways your state could price based on usage. With Reema Griffith, Executive Director, Washington State Transportation Commission, and Chris Rall, Program Manager, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 8: Creative Placemaking
Examples from around the country about leveraging the power of the arts, culture and creativity to support growth and transformation while also building character and quality of place. With Marian Liou, Founder and Executive Director, We Love BuHi (Atlanta, GA); Rochelle Carpenter, Senior Policy Advisor, Greater Nashville Regional Council; and Ben Stone, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 9: Transportation and Climate: How States Can Tackle Emissions
The Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states are exploring a framework for emissions reductions in transportation. How can this work be accelerated, how can a market-based program advance transportation equity, and what lessons can be learned from existing cap-and-invest programs such as California’s. This session will be of special interest to attendees from the “TCI” participant states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. With Chris Dempsey, Director, Transportation for Massachusetts, and Alex Beckmann, Program Associate, Transportation for America.

Roundtable 10: Equity in Transportation – Opportunity Deferred
What is equity in transportation? How to consider the transportation needs of marginalized populations and recognize the impact of past investments on equity. Best practices in ensuring that transportation policies from regional transit governance to the creation of new sources of revenue consider equity. With Nathaniel Smith, Founder and Chief Equity Officer, Partnership for Southern Equity, and Calvin Gladney, President and CEO, Smart Growth America.

Roundtable 11: Making the Case for Transit
Dive into the data that reveal how transit supports businesses, and hear examples of companies that are making transit-based decisions to benefit their bottom line. What are the messages that work? With Audrey Wennink, Director, Metropolitan Planning Council, and Steve Davis, Communications Director, Smart Growth America.

Roundtable 12: Knocking Down Barriers to Deploying Autonomous Vehicles
How do you ensure driverless vehicles are safe? How do we deploy autonomous vehicles in a mixed-fleet environment? And how do we include autonomous vehicles in long range plans? Join us to discuss some of the biggest questions facing communities interested in autonomous vehicles. With Kelley Coyner, Senior Fellow, George Mason University; founder and CEO, Mobility e3, and Jason Levine, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety.

In-depth conversations with colleagues from across the country are one of the best reasons to join Capital Ideas. Register today and we’ll see you in December.

—

Thank you to our sponsors

—

Host Committee

—

Promotional partners

Have questions about registration, sponsorship, or our program? Email capitalideas@t4america.org to talk with our team.

Why don’t DOTs pick routes like we do?

Your GPS gives you the choice of two routes.

One would take 15 minutes, but you’d travel at only 20 miles per hour. One would take 46 minutes, but you’d get to travel at 60 miles per hour. Which do you pick?

We’d pick the 15 minute trip, every time. This seems basic to anyone who has used a smart phone. But DOTs have long used travel speed as a (poor) proxy for how efficiently things are moving, partially because, for decades, it has been nearly impossible to measure every trip taking place within a city or a transportation system.

But it’s not 1950 anymore. New technologies can tell us where trips happen and how long they take, and empower travelers to choose a variety of routes spread between driving, walking, biking, and transit.
DOTs must learn to use the same approach, and at Capital Ideas 2018, we’ll be talking about how DOTs can measure system success in new ways.

Most DOTs measure the functionality of their transportation system using a standard called Level of Service or “LOS”. We explained a lot of the problems with LOS back in 2016. The short answer is that measuring the wrong thing leads to the wrong outcomes. Focusing on speed would mean making every road as wide and straight as possible — but no community wants all its roads to be freeways. Residential streets and local roads work just fine, but DOTs haven’t had a good way to measure that — until now.

“Measuring Access to Jobs and Necessities,” a panel on December 6 during Capital Ideas, will discuss publicly for the first time a new set of metrics that can help DOTs understand travelers’ needs more comprehensively.

Register today to be among the first to learn about these new metrics. You’ll hear from three transportation agencies that are among the first putting this measure into practice.

Here at T4America we often say “we measure what we treasure.” What we treasure is transportation options that support regional economies and strong communities in addition to moving fast. We hope you’ll join us to discuss making them happen.

Mixed messages on transportation at the ballot box this week

With a range of notable ballot measures for transportation considered by voters Tuesday, how did the issue fare at the ballot box? Did the recent trends for transportation-related measures continue?

Metropolitan Transit System, Trolley # 4014

Compared with two years ago when there were a number of major, big-ticket ballot measures to raise billions in new local revenue for transit on the ballot, there were relatively few local ballot measures raising new money for ambitious bus or rail transit projects in 2018. We’ll get into what actually happened at the local level, but this year, one of the more interesting trends emerged at the state level.

[member_content]

T4America members: We’ve produced a more detailed post-election analysis for you. You can download that short document here. Reach out to us if you have any questions.

[/member_content]

Statewide

The biggest question on the ballot was Proposition 6 in California, which would have undone the state’s 2017 legislation that increased fuel taxes to raise more than $50 billion to prioritize repair and pledge billions toward transit, safe streets for walking and biking, and an overall multimodal approach to solving the state’s transportation challenges. The legislation also gave money directly to California localities to spend on their greatest needs, allowing for a strong measure of local control.

Proposition 6 was defeated—preserving 2017’s tax increase—with just 45 percent in favor. Of all the states that have raised new transportation revenues since 2012, California was one of the few that raised new money that could be used on a diverse range of needs. Voters just signaled their approval for this approach a year later.

By contrast, statewide proposals to raise new revenues for transportation—almost all for only roads—failed in Missouri and Colorado, as well as a non-binding advisory measure in Utah that went down by a wide margin. While a portion of Colorado’s gas tax dollars (those directed to localities) can be used on any transportation purpose, both Missouri and Utah have constitutional prohibitions on 100% of their gas tax dollars, preventing them from being spent on any other transportation needs.

What’s the trend to extrapolate from these four measures? The latter three measures were essentially status quo referenda on whether or not voters want to put more money into the existing state system for transportation. The taxpayers resoundingly answered “no.” In Missouri’s case, this was their second run at raising state fuel taxes for only roads, and like in 2014, voters in the state’s metro areas widely rejected the measure, viewing the taxes as regressive and a way to funnel money out of their metro area to pay for needs elsewhere in the state. All three contrast with California’s new system to devote new taxes toward a range of multimodal projects that was reaffirmed by voters.

This will be the most pressing question of 2019 as Congress ramps up to work on reauthorization. Do the American taxpayers believe that the federal transportation system works for them? Will they be supportive of federal legislators raising their taxes or creating new revenues to put into the same old system?

Local

At the local level, there were notable measures approved in Broward County (north of Miami) and Hillsborough County (Tampa). Broward’s penny sales tax increase would raise $15.6 billion over 30 years, largely for transit with about $9 billion earmarked for new light rail lines. In Tampa’s case, after a few failed attempts, they finally passed a measure with money for transit that raises the sales tax by a penny to raise about $275 million annually for transportation. (Revenues are split 45/55 between transit and roads/other projects.)

Federal

Many want to know how the changeover in House leadership will impact transportation, and particularly transit funding. It’s worth noting, however, that it’s been a bipartisan effort in Congress to press on USDOT to keep these transit projects moving. It was a Republican House and Senate that approved an unprecedented provision to the 2018 appropriations bill requiring USDOT to obligate all of their 2018 transit capital grants before the end of 2019. And it was a Republican move in the Senate to require Trump’s USDOT to use President Obama’s TIGER grant qualifications for the last round of TIGER grants.

Will much else change with the House’s leadership transition? The top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee—the committee charged with writing policy for the 2020 reauthorization—went on the record today saying that federal transportation policy is just fine as it is. All we need is more money.

We’ll have more on the federal angle in the coming days. View our tracker for 2018 state and local ballot measures for transportation here.

USDOT’s AV Guidance: Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0

On October 11, 2018, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) released ​Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0​.​ According to the USDOT, this document builds upon, but does not replace the voluntary guidance previously released in 2017 as ​Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety​. An analysis exclusively for Transportation for America members on this latest guidance is here.

Crookston, MN: Where investment in public transit and hard-working Americans “help buses come alive”

Last week Transportation for America traveled to one of New Flyer of America’s transit bus manufacturing facilities in northern Minnesota to meet with state and local leaders like State Representative Deb Kiel, and get a close look at the economic impact of public transportation dollars on Minnesota manufacturing jobs.

State and local leaders get an inside look at New Flyer of America’s transit bus production line in Crookston, MN. New Flyer proudly flies both the US and Canadian flag as part of NFI Group Inc., a multinational company and North America’s largest bus manufacturer with 31 facilities across the U.S. and Canada.

When Americans think about transit, the first thing that comes to mind might be a bus or train moving people in a coastal, bustling urban area. But the work of manufacturing that bus or railcar—as well as its thousands of component parts— is made possible by the billions in state, local, and federal funds invested in transit each year. And those dollars have effects that ripple out to communities of nearly all sizes across the country.

Last week, we convened state and local leaders like State Representative Deb Kiel, Crookston Mayor Wayne Melbye, staff from U.S. Representative Colin Peterson’s office, and others at New Flyer of America’s transit bus manufacturing facility in Crookston, MN for a discussion about how federal, state, and local money invested in public transportation supports and creates jobs in Minnesota and across the country.


(Left) Jennifer McNeill, New Flyer Vice President of Sales and Marketing talks with Craig Hoiseth, Executive Director at Crookston Housing & Economic Development Authority. (Right) Second from right, Rep. Deb Kiel, and other local leaders hear from New Flyer about the inner workings of the Crookston facility.

Crookston, located in the far northwest corner of the Minnesota, is home to one of New Flyer of America’s four transit bus manufacturing facilities in the U.S. New Flyer of America serves all 25 of the largest transit agencies in North America, and is responsible for about half of the transit buses we see on our roads today.

Each week at the Crookston facility alone, they produce about 20 buses that end up serving communities across the U.S. On the tour we saw technicians in this small, rural community in Minnesota hard at work to build buses destined for cities like Phoenix and San Francisco, painting a compelling picture of just how the supply chain for transit ripples from coast to coast.

New Flyer employs over 1,200 people between its two manufacturing facilities in Minnesota. Like many manufacturers, New Flyer needs a trained and consistent workforce to succeed; both time and money are wasted if you have to retrain a workforce every few years. As Jennifer McNeill, New Flyer Vice President of Sales and Marketing, noted, these are skilled manufacturing jobs, not jobs that can be switched on and off as needed.


(Left) New Flyer employees building out the inside of a bus. (Right) Chairman of Transportation for America, John Robert Smith, speaks to the economic impact of public transportation dollars on manufacturing jobs.

70 percent of New Flyer’s buses are purchased with public dollars, and it’s clear that these Minnesota manufacturing jobs—and others in Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin—are directly reliant on the federal government continuing to make smart investments in transit.

Unfortunately, ongoing transit funding isn’t entirely certain today. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has been slow to award grants from the major federal program that helps communities make new investments in high-quality transit service. But the issue goes beyond discretionary grant programs. Congress has had difficulty passing multi-year transportation funding bills and finding dedicated funding sources for transportation. Before passing the FAST Act in December 2015 (which funds federal transportation investments through 2020), Congress passed 35 short-term extensions, which creates the kind of uncertainty that threatens manufacturing jobs that depend on a stable pipeline of orders and projects.

Federal money invested in public transportation each year leverages local and state funding and supports thousands of high paying manufacturing jobs in communities like Crookston, and in nearly every state across the country. Our recent report on the public transportation supply chain found that 91 percent [396 of 435] of congressional districts host at least one manufacturer.

Without predictable and stable federal and state funding, we may see transit agencies cut projects and be pressured to cancel bus and railcar orders from manufacturers across the country like New Flyer.

Federal investments in transit go far beyond building buses and trains for big cities. The transit supply chain supports high quality, valuable, and sustainable jobs in communities like Crookston all across the country. As members of Congress are considering federal appropriations and future long-term transportation funding bills, they should remember the hard working Americans in communities of all sizes that depend on transit funding.  

Photo courtesy of New Flyer

Florida is out in front on driverless vehicles

The State of Florida knows that the way they’ve done transportation projects for the last 50 years won’t be the way to do them for the 50 years ahead. That’s why the Florida Department of Transportation, in partnership with the City of Gainesville, state legislators, and mobility company Transdev, are piloting one of the first autonomous vehicle shuttle projects in the country.

“It can’t just be a research project. It needs to move people,” says Dan Hoffman, Assistant City Manager for the City of Gainesville, which is the location of the pilot. “We want to understand how this technology could support an entire transportation network.”

Gainesville’s shuttle is currently in the testing phase. Once in operation, its route will connect the University of Florida’s campus and downtown Gainesville. It would be among the first automated vehicles in the nation to provide fixed-route transit services in mixed traffic on public roads.

“Florida is putting their money where their mouth is,” says Hoffman. “We want economic development. We want people to be safer on our roads. We are willing to start thinking in new ways about how to accomplish that.”

Dramatic advances in transportation technology are part of what’s powering Gainesville’s shuttle. But the project wouldn’t have been possible without making changes and innovations to state transportation policy. In 2016, the Florida Legislature passed the nation’s first legislation to legalize fully autonomous vehicles on public roads without a driver behind the wheel. Several other cities in Florida have started pilot projects with driverless vehicles since then, and other states have since moved to follow Florida’s lead.

To discuss how Gainesville and the State of Florida are doing this work, and what other states can learn from it, Dan Hoffman will one of our featured speakers at Capital Ideas 2018, taking place on December 5 and 6 in Atlanta, GA. Register for the conference today to hear more details about Gainesville’s driverless vehicle project and ask questions about your own projects.

Why come all the way to Atlanta if you can read about the project online?

“You always pick up nuances about the work at presentations and events,” Hoffman says. “People feel a little more comfortable being honest in person and that’s really the biggest benefit of events like Capital Ideas. You get to connect with the people who do your type of work in other places and have conversations that are a little more wonky or specific than with anyone else. To me, that’s the biggest benefit.”

Get your ticket to Capital Ideas 2018 today to hear from Dan and to discuss your own community’s work on autonomous vehicles and the future of new mobility. We hope to see you in Atlanta in December.

—

Thank you to our sponsors

—

Host Committee

—

Promotional partners

Have questions about registration, sponsorship, or our program? Email capitalideas@t4america.org to talk with our team.

Cities eager to receive transit dollars from USDOT are receiving letters instead

Instead of approving projects and providing the money cities have applied for, USDOT is “allowing” cities to move ahead with construction on transit capital projects and incur costs that might one day be reimbursed by USDOT.

A few weeks ago, Streetsblog LA reported that Metro in Los Angeles had received a letter from USDOT that allows them to proceed with construction on their Purple Line subway westward toward the beach. (Bold type ours):

At this morning’s Metro Construction Committee, CEO Phil Washington announced that Metro had received a federal letter of no prejudice (LONP) for construction to proceed on the third phase of the Westside Purple Line. Washington aptly described this as a “big deal,” as this was the first major transit project that this administration has approved to proceed to the federal New Starts engineering phase. The federal letter of no prejudice covers an initial $491 million, nearly all for tunnel construction. The LONP guarantees that the feds will reimburse the local expenditures under a forthcoming full-funding grant agreement (FFGA).

Guarantees? Not quite. Los Angeles is right to treat this as a positive development, but these types of letters do not guarantee any federal money for transit projects.

Here’s what Obama’s USDOT said about these types of letters in a batch of policy guidance from early 2017, just before the transition:

Pre-award authority is not a legal or implied commitment that the subject project will be approved for FTA assistance or that FTA will obligate Federal funds. Furthermore, it is not a legal or implied commitment that all items undertaken by the applicant will be eligible for inclusion in the project. …Federal funding…is not implied or guaranteed by an [Letter of No Prejudice.] (pp 20, 22.)

By starting construction on this project without the full guarantee of funding, LA Metro is taking a risk, but they are still making a pretty rational decision. Just like the other cities with transit projects in the pipeline, Los Angeles is fully expecting that USDOT will do their job as required by law—something they’ve always done—and approve projects in a timely matter in order to obligate the $2.3 billion Congress provided in 2017 and 2018.

LA has a project with expiring construction bids due to USDOT’s delays up to this point, is on a tight timeline to have service running in time for the 2028 Olympics, and has already raised billions in local funds to pay their share.

Under previous administrations, whenever a city received one of these letters, their project was typically approved. So why should anyone be skeptical when this USDOT provides these letters? Here are two reasons:

  • This particular administration at USDOT has no established track record of advancing multi-year transit projects. If they were sending out these letters at the same time as they were routinely signing other grant agreements and obligating dollars to other multi-year transit projects, there would certainly be a level of trust established, as has been the case with previous administrations.
  • This administration has gone on the record multiple times asking Congress to provide them with zero dollars for multi-year transit projects that don’t yet have signed funding agreements — projects just like those in Los Angeles and Minneapolis, a region that is also awaiting final approval.

Cities are only in this difficult position because USDOT has failed to advance transit projects through the process in a clear, transparent, and timely manner.

While USDOT will hopefully approve LA’s project and award them funding, possibly before the end of this year, what about the other cities who are a little further behind in the process?

On the one hand, you can get a letter from USDOT that says you’re free to proceed and spend your own dollars on a big-ticket transit project, and that they won’t “prejudice” the eventual review of your application with the fact that you started building a project that wasn’t yet fully approved.

On the other hand, this administration at FTA and USDOT has twice asked Congress to eliminate all transit capital dollars, save for the money they’re already on the hook to provide for the projects that have pre-existing funding agreements.

Los Angeles is in a position where they can spend their own money to get started, counting on USDOT to (eventually) follow the law and award the money Congress appropriated. But other smaller cities or cities with more tenuous local funding might not be able to spend millions with the non-binding promise that they’ll eventually be reimbursed.

USDOT is creating an unnecessarily risky situation for cities. If you are one of the cities that’s ready or nearly ready but awaiting funding from USDOT, why trust a non-binding letter from an administration that’s already asked Congress to appropriate zero dollars for your project in the budget?

We’re eager to give credit to FTA when it’s due and they get these projects moving, but that time hasn’t yet arrived.