Skip to main content

ICYMI Member Webinar: New round of BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grants now open

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released the FY 2018 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the program formerly known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). The NOFO declares that USDOT has rebranded TIGER as the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development or “BUILD” program. The criteria for funding under BUILD and TIGER are essentially the same—with one big caveat. Under BUILD, USDOT will now require applicants to provide evidence that they have secured and committed new, non-federal revenue for projects requesting funding. Read more here.

Listen to the exclusive preview of how to make your application stand out here. Our senior policy and transportation expert Beth Osborne, and Robert A. Mariner Deputy Director from the Office of Infrastructure Finance and Innovation at USDOT, went over the timeline, deadlines, and the new requirements of this round of applications.

Also, remember that we are here to help with your application. As a T4America member you get one-on-one time with our experts to discuss your application. Contact me at alicia.orosco@t4america.org to set up your meeting today!

Ding, Ding! Round one of dockless scooters

The deployment of dockless, electric scooters in cities across the country has been hectic to say the least. What’s been happening, what lessons are cities learning, and how can these systems be deployed in ways that serve the public and the cities’ goals?

Dockless, electric scooter-sharing systems are exploding in popularity since first arriving in U.S. cities nine months ago, and for good reason. Along with dockless bikeshare, scooters have highlighted the desire by many residents to cover short distances quickly and easily.

In April, the scooter-sharing company Bird released ridership data showing that over 30 days and 100,000 rides, its users averaged 1.5 miles per trip in San Francisco. With 35 percent of U.S. vehicle trips two miles or less in length, there’s not only market potential, but also a clear opportunity to shift many of those trips to a cleaner, more sustainable mode. Frankly, they’re also fun.

Just like Uber or other new providers, the scooters have also come with their fair share of controversy. Often dropped overnight in cities in huge numbers without any regulations in place and without approval, they’ve been scattered across sidewalks, blocking the right-of-way and even found discarded in rivers and fountains.

These issues and others are forcing cities to develop regulations on the fly to manage their impacts and also to integrate them into their transportation networks — another strain on cities and transportation departments across the country. In the past two months, both San Francisco and Austin have passed emergency ordinances to begin the process of setting up regulations and set caps on how many scooters can operate in their communities.

The rapid pace with which new transportation technologies are being introduced into our cities not only highlights the need to create flexible regulatory frameworks that can be applied broadly, but also the need for private sector companies to come to the table as true partners and work with cities.

When companies don’t take this approach, it’s often more expensive, takes longer and is less productive for everyone. To say nothing of the distrust this behavior creates or the negative precedent they set for long-term cooperation or partnerships between the public and private sectors.

Whether scooters or something else, as new technologies multiply and private sector companies continue to operate with a “move fast and break things” ethos, cities will need to proactively develop flexible, but consistent, processes that will help them integrate new technologies into their communities on their own terms.

Nine of the 24 cities participating in our Smart Cities Collaborative this year already have scooters operating in their communities. We spoke with three of them to get a better sense of how they are dealing with scooters and summarize their experiences into a few clear lessons for other cities.

Santa Monica, CA

The first system of dockless scooters in the U.S. launched in Santa Monica in September 2017. Like many scooter launches to follow, Bird had spoken with city officials beforehand and the city responded by asking for Bird’s help in determining what changes to their city code would be necessary to allow them to operate. Unfortunately, soon after this conversation, but before any regulatory changes could be made, Bird deployed their scooters on city streets.

After a few months of scooters clogging sidewalks, causing safety hazards and failing to acquire a business license, Santa Monica passed an emergency ordinance. Through the ordinance, the city created a temporary framework to allow scooters to operate. “We modified our existing vending permit since this was the most applicable permit as it is usually issued to businesses selling anything mobile,” said Francie Stefan, Mobility Division Manager with the City of Santa Monica. This gave Bird, and other companies, the ability to operate on private property, but also allowed the city to impound and collect a fee on scooters parked in the public right-of-way.

But, that doesn’t mean the city is actively impounding all scooters parked on sidewalks. “Council directed staff to enforce when there were immediate ADA or safety risks—but, this has also created some difficulty around enforcement, especially when the scooters are moving around more quickly than officers can get to them,” according to Stefan. The ordinance is temporary—it will expire on January 1, 2019—and the city is currently developing a pilot for these scooters to inform a final permitting process.

San Francisco, CA

Similarly to Santa Monica, in March, San Francisco was suddenly confronted with scooters from Bird, LimeBike and Spin on their streets and sidewalks. While many residents were excited, complaints also poured in about scooters blocking the right-of-way and creating unsafe conditions on streets and sidewalks. After the San Francisco Attorney General sent out a cease and desist letter, the Board of Supervisors quickly established a requirement that any scooter would need a permit to park on a sidewalk.

In response, the city set up a new pilot program for permitting. The one-year pilot regulates the number of scooters each operator can have and the type of data operators need to share, requires operators to provide membership options to low-income individuals, and gives operators clear instructions on how these vehicles can operate safely.

San Francisco got all of this done in a couple of weeks, but according to Warren Logan, Senior Transportation Planner at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), it wasn’t a choice. But, given their history of other mobility providers deploying on their streets without permission, they were prepared.

“Our hand was forced to move very quickly on this issue,” says Logan. “Everyone is trying to be the next Uber, but it’s a different landscape now that we know the playbook.”

Austin, TX

While the city was in the middle of developing a pilot program to regulate both dockless bikes and scooters, Bird—and later LimeBike—launched in early April without receiving approval. The challenge facing Austin was a loophole in the city’s code giving scooters the ability to legally operate and left the city with no authority to impound them. “We had outdated ordinances that were originally designed for vending in the right-of-way,” says Karla Taylor, Chief of Staff at the Austin Department of Transportation. “These ordinances were written 20 years ago and were not written with dockless in mind.”

To fix this, the Austin City Council pushed back its proposed pilot timeline and passed an emergency resolution banning the presence of dockless scooters in the right-of-way until a permitting process could begin and gave the city the authority to impound vehicles. After the resolution passed, Bird and LimeBike promptly pulled their scooters from Austin’s streets until they could go through the permitting process, which will now begin on May 15th.

What can other cities learn from these cities’ experiences?

Be proactive

Whether cities are ready for them or not, scooters are coming. Fast. Over the last few weeks alone, other systems launched in Atlanta, Nashville and Charlotte despite receiving a cease and desist letter in Nashville and a forced shutdown in Charlotte.

While cities like Austin and San Francisco were caught off guard when scooters launched, they were able to act quickly in part because they were already thinking about how to address these issues—and related ones. “We know the playbook,” as SFCTA’s Logan said. Austin was actively working on an implementation plan and San Francisco had a proposed resolution to create a permitting process just a few weeks before the launch.

According to Karla Taylor in Austin, the best move for cities is to open up their code. “Cities should look at their governing ordinances. A lot of cities will not have the legal capabilities to manage this.” Taylor notes that if the city doesn’t figure out where the holes are, the private sector will. “These companies know where there’s a weakness, and they’ll exploit this weakness,” as they deploy into new communities. Without an understanding of what their options are to regulate, cities won’t be able to effectively manage them.

Even with preparation and planning, both cities were forced to be reactive when scooter systems launched. This should be a signal to other cities to begin this process now. There’s no longer an excuse for being caught off guard.

Don’t reinvent the wheel

These cities were on their own when it came to the first wave of dockless scooters. But, given that they’ve had to figure out how to approach this problem, other communities should start with a much better understanding of what will be necessary and learn from them. While no city claims to have the perfect formula yet, they’ve tried and tested various approaches and each of the cities we spoke with expressed a willingness to help others.

And, as these cities start to gather data on how their operations are affecting the mobility landscape, they’ll learn more and more about the impacts of scooters on access, safety and modal shift giving them more information and tools to hone their regulations.

Develop flexible frameworks that can govern any new mode—not just scooters

When one scooter company deploys, others tend to follow. “We’re being circled actively by every other provider I can think of,” said Francie Stefan in Santa Monica about the constant push to deploy more scooters since Bird’s launch last year. San Francisco reflects a similar sentiment. “If one of these companies launches, they all have to launch,” says Warren Logan at SFCTA.

When cities show they’re open for business, other companies come knocking at the door as well. And while some the challenges that have come with the introduction of scooters are unique to scooters, they’re also reflective of what cities face with the introduction of new mobility options and technologies.

Being clear about long-term outcomes (such as safety, equity, or mode shift) and how new technologies can contribute to those goals is a great way to get started. It’s also important for cities to understand what they want and need out of any new technology or company (such as placement, data or fare structures) as the regulations are developed. Collaborating with and learning from other cities’ experiences can help crystalize the issues at hand and accelerate the process.

As cities manage the introduction of dockless scooters – and other new mobility options in the future – they’ll need clear, flexible processes to ensure it’s on their own terms and helps achieve their outcomes.

Want more news from the Smart Cities Collaborative in your inbox? Sign up here.

Sign up

Capital Ideas 2018 Conference— Call for session proposals now open

Mark your calendars for the 2018 edition of Transportation for America’s national conference for those interested in forward-looking state transportation policy and funding solutions.

In light of the Trump administration’s rhetorical and policy shift away from direct federal funding for transportation investments, the spotlight again turns to states and localities when it comes to policy and funding for transportation. Over 30 states have stepped up and passed new transportation funding legislation since 2012. An unfortunately much smaller number of states have passed smart policies to reform how those dollars are spent.

Capital Ideas 2018, will offer a highly interactive curriculum of model state legislation, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help participants advance successful proposals to raise new funding for transportation and ensure those dollars are wisely spent to accomplish tangible goals and help states stay competitive in the 21st century. Our 3rd biennial national conference to be held in Atlanta, GA on Wednesday, December 5, 2018 and Thursday, December 6, 2018.

Call for session proposals now open

Transportation for America invites cutting-edge proposals for conference roundtable sessions and general plenary sessions that pertain to the emerging paradigm shift characterizing our transportation landscape today—disruption and uncertainty. The plenary and roundtable discussions at Capital Ideas 2018 seeks to address the following questions:

  • How will states manage their role in transportation funding & policy during this time of dramatic transition and change?
  • What is the appropriate role of state government in a disruptive world of transportation policy?
  • What can states do to ensure that our transportation network is equitable, accessible, safe and affordable?
  • Are our investment decisions today ensuring stronger local economies, greater access to opportunity and jobs, cleaner environments, healthier populations or better mobility for everyone in the future?
  • With a continually shifting and uncertain future for federal transportation funding, how can states successfully fund transportation investments and how will they demonstrate the value of their investments?

All plenary and session proposals are due on June 15, 2018 at 8 p.m. EDT.  Submitted your plenary and or session proposal here. Also remember that as a T4America member you get a discounted member ticket price. Conference registration opens on May 8, 2018. Learn more here.

 

What applicants need to know about TIGER’s replacement program: BUILD

The ever-popular TIGER grant program has returned for a ninth round, but this time with triple the usual amount of funding, a brand new name (and acronym), and new criteria and qualifications that were added to the program by appropriators in the Senate and House. Our resident expert takes a closer look at the changes.

On Friday April 20th, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released the FY 2018 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development or BUILD program, previously known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). Having worked on Capitol Hill when this program was passed in 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and then at USDOT where I helped run multiple rounds of competitive grantmaking, I want to take a deeper dive, but also add some context about the changes to this program.

First, to say this program has always been popular is a gross understatement. It was not only the most popular program at USDOT but one of the most popular programs across all of government. USDOT routinely received 10 times the requests for funding than was available and overwhelmed grants.gov, the online portal for federal grant programs.

Flexibility has always been the key to its popularity. While most federal transportation dollars go to state DOTs (with a small amount going to transit agencies and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)) for specific types of projects written into federal law, TIGER funds could go to any governmental entity, including counties, cities, and rail authorities. This aspect continues in the BUILD program. Likewise, most transportation funds are divided up by “mode”—roadway vs. transit vs. rail vs. waterway. For example, if you have a roadway resurfacing project that includes the replacement of bus stops and the purchase of buses, for conventional federal transportation dollars, you would have to apply separately to different roadway and transit programs, which can involve multiple agencies within your state DOT and also within USDOT.

With BUILD, you can continue to get the necessary funding for your entire project in one application at one time.

As an aside, let me address the name change. I can’t pretend to be happy to see the name TIGER go away. As a proud graduate of Louisiana State University (LSU), I’ve been asked for years if the program was named after my LSU Tigers. The name preceded me but I have always loved the association. Still, as a product of the Recovery Act, TIGER’s focus was on projects that were both ready to go and could provide an economic shot in the arm. In the years since 2009, we have moved beyond the need for the intensive and immediate economic recovery that we sought in 2009, and it is time for a new name too. BUILD is a good one.

What makes BUILD different?

So what makes BUILD different from previous rounds of TIGER? Congress required the administration to keep the 2016 criteria (safety, economic competitiveness, quality of life, environmental sustainability, and state of repair), so the short answer is not a whole lot.

But the changes that were made are still notable.

First, there is a whole lot more money available: $1.5 billion. This is the most that Congress has appropriated to this program since the Recovery Act and triple the $500 million made available in the last round in FY2017. Additionally, up to $15 million of that $1.5 billion may be used for planning, preparation, or design grants for eligible projects (as happened in TIGER’s 2nd and 6th rounds.) USDOT Secretary Elaine Chao has the discretion on whether she wants to award any or all of that $15 million.

Congress also capped individual awards at $25 million. This one is quite a shame. In the first round of TIGER, we were able to fund a piece of the CREATE project in Chicago—a huge multi-billion effort to rationalize rail movement through the region and de-conflict it with transit and roadways—an enormous project with benefits that rippled throughout the country. We were able to fund double-stacking rail projects like the National Gateway Freight Rail Corridor and the replacement of the I-244 bridge in Tulsa. In subsequent rounds, projects tended to top out around $25 million because Congress shrank the overall size of the program but still required geographic equity, modal balance, and a fair rural/urban split. These factors combined to make it incredibly hard to fund any larger projects and still check all of those boxes. With the increase in funding for this round, USDOT had an opportunity to fund more of these larger, transformative projects; but Congress has unfortunately made that option unworkable.

Third, USDOT will now evaluate applicants on how well they secure and commit new, non-federal revenue for projects. This is a major new criterion worth elaborating on. USDOT defines new revenue as “revenue that is not included in current and projected funding levels and results from specific actions taken to increase transportation infrastructure investment.”

It is important to note that USDOT won’t consider any local or state revenue authorized before January 1st, 2015 as new revenue and nor can such revenue be applied as matching funds for BUILD projects. So, for example, if a state increased its gas tax before January 1, 2015, USDOT will not count the resulting revenue raised as new revenue. That includes the 12 states that took the bold step of increasing their state transportation funding between 2012 and 2014. Examples of new revenue according to USDOT are asset recycling, tolling, tax-increment financing, or sales or gas tax increases. Under this definition, bonds do not qualify as a new revenue source.

Fourth, Congress provided a strict timeline for making awards. USDOT must announce the recipients of BUILD grants no later than December 17, 2018. In order to meet that deadline, USDOT released this notice quickly and has set a deadline of 8:00 p.m. EDT on July 19, 2018 for all applications. Five months to make award decisions may seem like a long time to folks on the outside, but given that USDOT received 451 applications in the most recent round (for just one-third of the amount of funding available here), it will take a lot of hard work from the folks at USDOT to hit their deadlines.

Questions for USDOT

The emphasis on non-federal resources is not new from this administration. For the localities that haven’t raised new funding since January 2015, they’ll be hard-pressed to do so in the next few months before applications are due. And it will be difficult to balance the preference for new funding with USDOT’s other priorities. For example, the Trump administration wants to prioritize rural projects, but rural areas have the least ability to toll or raise new funding. Which of these competing priorities will win out? I tend to think the rural priority will.

If your state has raised the gas tax, do localities within that state get to take credit for it? What if a state prohibits its localities from raising funds? I assume that the administration will excuse state DOTs from this exercise, but will they hold these restrictions against states in their applications?

These are the sort of questions I plan to ask USDOT officials on our members-only webinar, scheduled for May 14 at 4 p.m. EDT. T4A members can email their questions in advance to Program Manager Alicia Orosco.

The last point I will make is that transit was basically locked out of the most recent round of TIGER awards. Many people have asked me whether it is worth the effort to apply for funding for transit projects this time. My answer is an unqualified “yes!” With three times the funding as last year and a cap on the size of awards, we can expect USDOT to fund 2-3 times as many projects. It will be harder for the administration to not select transit projects, especially projects that have some value capture or other funding associated with it. Further, many members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have complained mightily about the lack of transit projects in the last round. If they fail to fund transit reasonably this time, Congress will probably slap another requirement on them, and I think USDOT knows that and would like to avoid it.

Not yet a member? Join T4America today! Already a member? Connect with T4America staff

Smart Cities Collaborative hits the ground running in year two

Returning in a bigger fashion than the first year with 23 cities instead of 16, our Smart Cities Collaborative picked up where we left off with the launch of year two last week in Denver, CO.

It’s only been a few short months since we wrapped up the first year of the Collaborative, but we’ve still seen significant developments in how new and emerging technologies are reshaping the right-of-way and curb space. One instructive example is what’s currently happening in cities with dockless bike- and scooter-sharing systems—and how fast it’s happening.

When our first cohort of 16 cities gathered in Minneapolis on the day after the presidential election in 2016, there wasn’t a single dockless bikesharing system operating in any of these 16 cities. As pilot projects launched in Seattle, Washington, DC, and others in 2017, it became clear that dockless would have huge impacts in the year to come.

Nine months later and dockless is certainly a growing fixture in scores of cities. This might have been an obvious prediction, but even we didn’t quite see the scooters coming so fast. Less than 18 months after that first Collaborative meeting, dozens of cities are now scrambling to develop new approaches to dockless scooters (as well as the bikes) that are rapidly expanding on their streets and fighting for scarce curb and sidewalk space, but also providing popular new mobility options for getting around our congested cities.

In 2016, Uber (and Google’s Waymo) were just dipping their toes in the water on testing automated vehicles (AVs). Lured to Arizona by a friendly (i.e., mostly just non-existent) regulatory environment, they both started testing AVs in mid to late 2016 with relatively small fleets of cars, which have quickly grown to hundreds on the road in Arizona (and elsewhere). But now, cities (and states and Congress) are determining how they should proceed in the wake of the first fatal AV crash in Tempe, AZ.

This is the pace of change that cities are dealing with when it comes to urban mobility and technology: Completely new mobility models from concept to widespread rollout in less than 18 months.

Standing still or just waiting to see how things develop simply isn’t a viable strategy for cities that want to harness this change for the benefit of their cities and their residents. They have to be proactive.

That’s why over 60 participants from 43 agencies representing 23 cities came to Denver last week for the kickoff meeting of the Collaborative’s second cohort.

Though this new cohort brought scores of new faces to the Collaborative (thirteen cities from last year returned), the spirit of collaboration and cooperation carried over in full. From the moment participants arrived from the airport in to Denver’s Union Station, they quickly and easily engaged with one another about the challenges they’re facing in their cities, the projects they’re working on, and started getting to know each other.

Similar to our first kickoff meeting in Minneapolis last year, the goal of this meeting was to get participants to know one another, identify the challenges they’re trying to solve, and develop tangible action plans for the year — not just to set goals, but also to identify areas for collaboration with other cities.

We were incredibly lucky to have Denver Mayor Michael B. Hancock stop by to welcome everyone to the city, and also ground us with a reminder that the core purpose of this work is to make our cities better places to live for everyone — not just for a privileged few.

“This is much broader than just ‘what does the road look like,’” Mayor Hancock said. “It’s also an opportunity for us to lean in and lead with our values and be inclusive. And making sure that those people who are most challenged in our communities have an opportunity to raise themselves up by lifting those burdens of the cost of housing and transportation off of their shoulders,” he concluded.

Unlike last year, where some cities were still figuring out their projects during our kickoff meeting, many of the participants arrived in Denver with a much clearer idea of what they plan to work on over the course of this year.

But instead of diving straight into the details of these projects, we took a step back to get participants on the same page for talking and thinking about these projects, and to make sure their projects had a clearly identified problem and outcome in mind. That’s why we’re perpetually asking, “What problem are you trying to solve?” because we all too often rush straight to the solution or a specific piece of technology.

Throughout the first day, the experts and panel discussions and conversations focused on the bigger picture of where technology is going, what trends are real (or not real), and why collaboration is vital for having any chance to stay ahead of the curve. Participants also identified the long-term vision for their city and, reflecting Mayor Hancock’s comments above, discussed strategies for improving equity through their projects, and hard-coding that goal into all of their processes.

Having set the tone in day one, teams from each of the cities spent the bulk of the second day developing their action plans for the coming year. But in keeping with the modus operandi of the Collaborative, they started hashing out their action plans in a cooperative format with 10-12 people from other cities who are working on a similar specific issue, such as a dynamic curb management pilot project.

This helps connect them directly with their peers who are working on similar issues and see where opportunities for greater collaboration exist. And it’s hard to overstate how valuable these structured (and unstructured) opportunities are for connecting with peers facing similar challenges in other cities.

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. If one particular city has made progress in rolling out a new strategy to better manage curb space, or a new pilot program for flexible delivery zones, for example, other cities can and should replicate their successes and learn how to avoid the pitfalls others encountered along the way.

They only had a few hours to develop them, but the cities’ action plan presentations were sharp, focused, and calibrated to tackle their real problems with real outcomes in mind over the next year. Presentations covered a wide range of topics: permitting processes for dockless bikeshare and scooters, loading zone pilots for ridesourcing and delivery vehicles, first-mile/last-mile microtransit pilots, new performance metrics to assess “transportation happiness,” and much more.

Like last year, this year’s cohort has an enthusiasm and excitement to collaborate with one another and collectively shape the future of transportation. It was a busy two days, but participants stuck around at the end of the meeting to weigh in on their projects with one another, ask questions, and exchange information for future conversations.

Representing metro areas that are collectively home to almost a full third of the US population (and a huge chunk of Canada via the inclusion of Toronto), the decisions these leaders are making will affect how we think and talk about transportation for years down the road. After this first two-day stretch with this new group of 60+ leaders, we’re confident that they are headed in the right direction when it comes to navigating the rapid changes coming to urban transportation.

We’re looking forward to being part of this conversation and to our next in-person meeting of the Collaborative this July in Seattle.

This post was written by Transportation for America’s Rob Benner and Steve Davis.

The TIGER program is no more….in name


A rendering of the Multimodal Corridor Enhancement Project (MCORE) in Urbana and Champagne, Illinois is a complex street safety enhancement project that involved two city governments, the local transit agency, the University of Illinois, and the state. It wouldn’t have been possible without a TIGER grant.

Today, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) released the FY 2018 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the program formerly known as Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER). The NOFO declares that USDOT has rebranded TIGER as the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development or “BUILD” program. The criteria for funding under BUILD and TIGER are essentially the same—with one big caveat. Under BUILD, USDOT is putting a new emphasis on securing and committing new, non-federal revenue for projects requesting funding.

USDOT defines new revenue as “revenue that is not included in current and projected funding levels and results from specific actions taken to increase transportation infrastructure investment.” And any local or state revenue authorized before January 1, 2015 is not considered new revenue and cannot be applied as matching funding for BUILD projects.

Examples of “new revenue” according to USDOT are asset recycling, tolling, tax-increment financing, or sales or gas tax increases. Under this definition, bonds do not qualify as a new revenue source.

If this sounds familiar that is because it is! The criteria for funding consideration under BUILD is a lot like the requirement that the Trump administration included in their proposed infrastructure package earlier this year. As T4America’s analysis of the infrastructure package revealed, this criteria penalizes states and localities who have already raised more local revenue for transportation projects. Why are we penalizing states and cities who acted first?

Since 2012, 31 states have raised new transportation revenues and 12 of those states raised revenue before 2015—mostly by raising or otherwise modifying their gas taxes. Beyond states, many localities like Clayton County, GA and Alameda County, CA raised local funding before 2015 through ballot measures. Even if the taxes or other funding tools are producing new revenue today, if it happened before 2015, the Trump administration doesn’t care. Many of those cities (and the 12 states) would have to raise even more new funding to meet this criteria.

Asking localities to simply kick in more money would do little to guarantee better projects—it’ll just occupy more of the local funding that states or cities could invest elsewhere or spend on long-term maintenance. And the feds shouldn’t be pointing fingers about raising more money. Unlike these states and cities, the federal government hasn’t raised the gas tax (the largest source of federal transportation dollars) since 1993.

Rural communities get shortchanged by BUILD

This is especially problematic for rural communities who already have a difficult time raising new revenue. Many of the sources of new revenue suggested by U.S. DOT—asset recycling, tolling, tax-increment financing—are not feasible in rural areas because there is little to no private demand to finance infrastructure in rural areas because it’s not profitable.

The administration has talked a big game about the need to improve infrastructure in rural areas and this NOFO is on message, saying that’s a priority for this year’s BUILD program. But this new criteria actively makes it harder for rural areas to be competitive for funding because they will struggle to raise new revenue.

With this big change, the BUILD program has already built something: another obstacle to rural communities getting the transportation funding they need.

Background on TIGER

The FY 18 omnibus package enacted into law last month tripled the size of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program from $500 million to $1.5 billion. The omnibus rejected the president’s proposal to eliminate the TIGER program. This NOFO makes available the $1.5 billion from the omnibus and requires applications to be submitted to USDOT by July 19, 2018.

The TIGER program was one of the only ways that local communities could apply for and directly receive federal dollars for their most needed transportation projects. TIGER enabled the development of complete streets and walkable communities, expanded intermodal access to our nation’s ports, improved our public transit network, made our highway and railway systems more efficient, and helped to strengthen our passenger ferry network. TIGER routinely had requests for three to four times more in funding than was available—making it a very competitive program—and raised $3.6 in additional funding for every dollar appropriated through TIGER. In short, TIGER has been a widely successful and popular program.

T4America members recently got the inside scoop on this next round of TIGER/BUILD via an exclusive webinar with USDOT.

Not yet a member? T4America regularly offers members more in-depth summaries of USDOT actions like this NOFO. In the days ahead, we will be helping members to make their applications more competitive.

Learn more about T4America membership here.

Hawaii can reach their clean energy goals with the help of smarter growth and land use

Ten years ago, Hawaii set ambitious goals to reduce their dependence on imported oil and create a clean energy future by 2045. But when it comes to their transportation system, Hawaii has to look beyond just electrifying their vehicle fleet or finding cleaner sources of energy. Smarter land use will reduce the length and frequency of car trips, and encourage more walking, biking, and transit use.

The Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative is charting a new path toward an energy-independent future for Hawaii. Today, imported oil supplies 80 percent of Hawaii’s energy. Our dependence on oil threatens our most precious resources—the land, air, and water that sustain us. And it places our economic security at risk. Simply stated, our current way of meeting our energy needs is not sustainable. Hawaii must alter its course.

Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative

Hawaii leaders and residents have a vested interest in both reducing their dependence on foreign oil and also finding cleaner sources of energy. Ten years later, on Earth Day 2018, how can Hawaii continue moving toward this vision? What are the key changes required, and what can the state to do make it happen? To analyze what it would take to get Hawaii to a clean energy future by its goal of 2045, The Elemental Excelerator turned to Smart Growth America (T4America’s parent organization) and the Rhodium Group.

Download the report, Transcending Oil:Hawaii’s Path to a Clean Energy Economy

 

What did we find?

If Hawaii did manage to shift to an all-electric vehicle (EV) fleet—included in our recommendations—but continued growing in the same form as today, the energy grid would need to produce one-third more energy than it does today. The power industry will already be struggling to find enough renewable energy without having to add such a large load. But if they pair EVs with building more connected, compact, mixed-use development with improved facilities for non-auto travel, vehicle miles traveled would go down by over 20 percent from what is projected, making it easier to meet Hawaii’s clean energy goals and saving people money.

To make the shift to clean energy, Hawaii needs to convert all vehicles to electric, such as today’s Nissan Leaf or the Ford Focus Electric. But no state can make this happen overnight, as the lifespan of a new car can be about 15 years. That means even if Hawaii required 100 percent of vehicles sold in the state to be electric by 2025, it would still take until around 2040 to see the fleet turn over from gas/diesel engines to EVs. And electrifying the fleet would be a monumental challenge. Hawaii would only have the authority to do this by joining California, who through a federal waiver has the authority to set their own vehicle emissions standards. Otherwise, fuel standards are controlled by the feds—standards that the Trump administration recently announced they’d like to roll back.

Compounding the problem, during that time period, Hawaii would also need to build out the infrastructure needed to fuel and charge all of those EVs, including a way to pay for transportation maintenance and improvements when there is no gas left to be taxed.

An all-electric fleet is only as clean as its energy sources

The Clean Energy Initiative aims to reduce petroleum use for transportation, which today accounts for two-thirds of the state’s overall energy use. In order for Hawaii to reach their clean energy future with an all-electric fleet, all of the energy used to power those vehicles would need to come from clean sources—solar, geothermal, wind, etc.

Even still, with no other structural changes, the net energy required would increase. If Hawaii kept growing and developing across the state in the same form, an all-electric fleet would add a 33 percent load to the electric grid in Hawaii.

Clearly, more is needed than just producing cleaner vehicles powered with cleaner energy sources.

Reduce transportation energy demand by pairing these changes with smarter growth

One reason the transportation sector uses so much energy is because we’ve put people’s homes far away from all the things they need—like jobs, groceries, schools and medical care. We don’t have to do this: we do this by choice.

This development pattern leaves residents little choice but to drive—usually alone. Rarely are two neighbors’ destinations located close together with everything so spread out. This drives the cost of living up by essentially requiring most people over the age of 16 to own a vehicle just to participate in the economy. Imagine that: a $10,000 cover charge to enter our economy. We want everyone to be able to participate in the economy, especially those that don’t have $10,000. Yet we exclude them in the way we design and build our communities.

Don’t be fooled—the free market did not create these conditions. In fact, prices in walkable communities with amenities near homes are worth a premium these days. But the supply of homes in these places doesn’t even come close to keeping up with demand. And our zoning codes prohibit the types of development seen in many of those in-demand neighborhoods that save residents money and cut down on fuel use. We require big houses set back from the street, separated from other houses with lots of parking and no amenities nearby. We engineer the “flood of traffic congestion” that results from all of it.

Just think: changes to state or local zoning codes would allow more traditional development where apartments are close to townhouses and single family detached housing, where houses are close to retail, restaurants, groceries, parks and schools. All types of households—young, single, married, seniors—could all spend less on transportation and put more money into retirement/housing/education/savings, and we could easily use less energy.

Reducing the demand for energy through smarter growth will help Hawaii make all its energy renewable and clean. This is the future we are encouraging for Hawaii—and indeed the rest of the country. Read our full report to see how it can be done. While Hawaii is unique, there are more lessons in common with the other 49 states than not.

 

On National Walking Day, too many Americans are still having to endure unsafe streets

Since we missed recognizing National Walking Day last week while the Complete Streets conference was happening in Nashville, we wanted to come back this week and revisit a T4America post from 2012 looking at what’s actually keeping more people from walking in many of our metro areas.

Originally posted on April, 4 2012.

You may not have known it — its not the most publicized special day on the books — but today is National Walking Day. Some of you may have traded part or all of your drive or transit trip today for a walk to work. But for many, every day is walking day, and it happens on streets with dangerous or inconvenient conditions that no one should have to endure just to walk to school, their job, or the grocery store.

Last Friday, I spent some time driving around the sprawling Atlanta, Georgia metroplex photographing some well-known trouble spots for pedestrian safety. Though some improvements have been made in places, there are still so many unsafe streets, corridors and intersections for pedestrians, finding streets that are dangerous by design is about as easy as blindly putting your finger down on a map.

The Atlanta Regional Commission has helped address some of these problems through their popular and oversubscribed Livable Centers Initiative that gives metro communities small grants to help make a dangerous street safer, improve MARTA access, add new crosswalks or streetscaping, or other small improvements to the built environment that help improve quality of life for residents. And the local group PEDS has had their boots on the ground for years now, working hard to make metro Atlanta more walkable. But we need far more of these kinds of efforts — and similar efforts from others in cities across the country — to make the kinds of improvements we need to save lives and end the 4,000-plus deaths that happen to people walking each year.

Many of these deaths occur simply because the design of a road just hasn’t adapted to the changing needs of all the people who use it.

Consider: at one point, Old National Highway in South Fulton County was probably a sleepy state highway through a relatively unpopulated area on ones way south out of Atlanta. Now, its teeming with retail on both sides of the street just south of Interstate 85. Add in the fact that its a relatively low-income area (read: people more likely to walk or take transit) with apartment complexes on both sides of the main highway and you’ve got a street that no longer meets the needs of everyone who uses it, and certainly not for the people who live there.

Metro ATL Pedestrians15

Though the first few miles away from Interstate 85 have sidewalks and there are a handful of signalized intersections with crosswalks, sidewalks soon end completely and there are many stretches where there are no safe places to cross for hundreds or thousands of feet — all in an area with MARTA bus stops on both sides of the highway. The sidewalks may end, but the walking doesn’t, as the desire paths through the grass indicate.

Metro ATL Pedestrians06

Of course, the most well-known road in Atlanta thats dangerous for walking and biking is certainly Buford Highway. This stretch near Clairmont Road is a whopping seven lanes across, with crosswalks often so far apart as to be merely dots on the horizon.

Metro ATL Pedestrians36

This corridor is lined with more affordable apartments and has also been a popular landing place for Latino and Asian immigrants for years, and many portions of the street are filled with small ethnic shops catering to the local clientele — many of whom are likely to be walking. According to the data in our map, in just the few miles from I-285 south down to 400, 20 pedestrians were killed from 1999-2009. There are stretches with no sidewalks on either side of the street and no safe crosswalks almost as far as the eye can see.

Metro ATL Pedestrians41

In this picture alone, not only are there no sidewalks but there are nine separate curb cuts where this man could be easily struck by a right-turning car before reaching the next safe crosswalk at the intersection.

Some key improvements have been made on Buford Highway in recent years, though, which have helped to increase safety. Thanks to recent efforts by Dekalb County and the Georgia Department of Transportation, a busy stretch of Buford Highway south of Doraville with high density of retail on both sides of the street received several new signalized intersections as well as new pedestrian-only mid-block crossings that use a special light called a HAWK signal. This is a light that stays dark until a pedestrian pushes a button, activating a light that flashes before turning red for cars. These crossings also include a refuge to shorten crossing distances and give people a safe place to wait while crossing.


And then there’s southern Cobb County, the northern Atlanta suburb where Raquel Nelson was walking when her son was killed and she found herself prosecuted after the fact. Some busy corridors have sidewalks and some don’t — though walking isn’t very pleasant next to seven lanes of traffic — and crosswalks can be interminably far apart.

Metro ATL Pedestrians24

This photo below bears some similarities to the conditions on the street where Raquel Nelson’s son A.J. was killed, which isn’t too far from here.

Metro ATL Pedestrians21

Note the bus stop on the other side of the street with a Cobb County bus approaching. See a marked crosswalk anywhere? Perhaps this man is trying to catch the bus? What happens when the bus drops you off and you need to reach a destination across the street? Should we really expect people to walk half a mile out of the frame to find a safer place to cross, and then walk half a mile back?

And some streets around here just have zero accommodation for pedestrians, including a busy street that serves two major universities and the county’s biggest employer (Dobbins AFB/Lockheed) right in the center of the county.

Metro ATL Pedestrians26

Keep in mind that these pictures represent just one busy American metropolis — there are hundreds more cities and thousands of places with similar conditions that need urgent attention. We have a long way to go to retrofit these streets to help make them safer for everyone that needs to use them. The complete streets provision in the Senates MAP-21 bill would be a step in the right direction, as would be the flexible funding that local governments can use to help address some of these dangerous areas under the Senate bill. (These provisions are a little out of date now. -Ed.)

With 67 percent of all pedestrian fatalities happening on federal-aid roads — many of which that were designed in this unsafe way because of federal design guidelines and standards — theres a clear role for the federal government to play in improving them.

So what would happen in our communities if we started by looking at our map of pedestrian fatalities to see where the worst trouble areas are and devoted a small slice of transportation money into small, tangible improvements like new sidewalks, new crosswalks, and new signals for making walking safer and more convenient? What if we made it a clear priority to make every day National Safe Walking Day?

Wouldn’t we be saving lives immediately? And for a small price?

Three communities selected to receive training to help improve transportation projects through arts & culture

Transportation for America is pleased to announce that Bozeman, Montana; Buffalo, New York; and Mariposa County, California have been selected to receive State of the Art Transportation Trainings. These three communities will each receive tailored technical assistance to equip them to utilize arts, culture and other creative approaches for solving specific transportation problems.

T4America’s State of the Art Transportation Trainings are made possible through funding from the National Endowment for the Arts and ArtPlace America, in collaboration with Americans for the Arts.

Why arts and culture? T4America deeply believes that artistic involvement can help solve entrenched transportation problems by thinking outside the manual and bringing in fresh approaches to the process. It can help heal communities divided by destructive infrastructure, generate more local buy-in for transportation projects, bring diverse constituents to the table, and create a sense of place that reflects local values of the communities transportation systems serve.

“With more than 40 communities applying for these workshops, we were struck by the range of inspiring ideas that communities have for incorporating arts and culture into the transportation planning process. These three places rose to the top of a very competitive pool, and we’re eager to help equip them to effectively collaborate,” said Ben Stone, director of arts and culture for Transportation for America.

“As T4America has gained more real-world experience over the last few years, we’ve seen how artistic and cultural practice can spark the kind of meaningful public engagement required to create transportation projects that more fully serve a community’s needs and celebrate its unique culture. One of the best ways for T4America to have a tangible impact is to find communities that have money to invest in infrastructure and are eager to bring arts into the process, but perhaps lack the expertise to make it happen. We hope these trainings can be a key ingredient to help these three communities produce better transportation projects through more inclusive processes.”

Read more about each of the projects below (adapted partially from their original applications):

Bozeman, Montana

A team from this booming region wants to creatively engage citizens and the arts community in the once-in-a-generation opportunity to imagine the future of a more robust regional transit system. Core to their strategy is harnessing and expanding the expertise of the arts community to build political and public will.

Bozeman is one of the fastest growing micropolitan areas in the country, rapidly evolving into a metropolitan area with a population that is predicted to double again from 100,000 to 200,000 in the next 25 years. They’re on the cusp of creating a metropolitan planning organization to coordinate regional planning efforts across a three county-area. As Bozeman starts trying to think and plan regionally, many of their leaders and advocates want to proactively start developing the relatively small Streamline regional transit system to provide more mobility options, take cars off the road, and reduce the need for expensive new lane miles as the region grows.

With the three main county jurisdictions in the Gallatin Valley all beginning updates of their comprehensive plans this spring, Bozeman’s leadership has an opportunity to engage their citizens and the expertise of the arts community to build political and public will to adequately fund a truly first-class regional transit system.

“The City of Bozeman is thrilled to be selected from among 40 applications across the country to receive one of three State of the Art workshops from Transportation for America,” said Bozeman Mayor Cyndy Andrus. “These workshops will integrate our lively and growing arts community with transit planning and engage citizens from across the Gallatin Valley to support creative and sustainable transportation solutions. Many thanks to Transportation for America for providing us with this opportunity.”

Buffalo, New York

With an existing city ordinance requiring public art to be integrated into all infrastructure investments, the city wants to improve the process by which those projects are developed, helping city engineers and planners more successfully collaborate with artists to create public art that empowers residents to take ownership of their neighborhoods.

In a city that was once an industrial powerhouse but has suffered from years of economic decline, the arts and culture community is still alive and active, and residents are taking ownership of their community once again thanks to the empowerment of neighborhoods, investments in the local economy, and development of infrastructure.

Buffalo is embarking on infrastructure improvements to a 2.5-mile corridor along Main Street that will improve pedestrian crossings, coordinate signals and build a new cycle track to make bicycling safer and more convenient. To ensure that the public art implemented with this specific project is representative of the people of the neighborhoods, aesthetically cohesive, and a functional long-term asset to the community, the city will use the workshop to creatively engage with the Department of Public Works, Buffalo Art Commission, and local community members.

Buffalo’s team hopes that this training will help them learn how to integrate public art in ways that are not only representative of the community, but also improves the quality of life for residents.

“As we continue to re-imagine and grow Buffalo into a city where opportunity is abundant for all people, I am pleased that our community has been given another tool to continue the work that we have been doing to integrate artistic expression into our transportation projects,” stated Buffalo Mayor Byron W. Brown, noting that today’s good news comes as Buffalo’s significant economic development revitalization continues. “I thank Transportation for America and Americans for the Arts for selecting Buffalo as a location to provide hands-on training workshops that will help further our efforts to use arts and culture to build local capacity, expand transportation opportunities and create projects that more fully serve the needs of our residents.”

Mariposa County, California

In this small northern California mountain town that serves as a popular gateway to Yosemite National Park, the workshop will bring a wide range of people in the community together to redesign a public space and help incorporate art into the development of a multimodal trail that will link community destinations and encourage healthy living while celebrating local culture and the environment.

Mariposa County occupies 1,463 square miles of the Sierra Nevada foothills at the western gateway to Yosemite National Park and hosts over one million annual visitors. The residents of Mariposa County are older and more likely to be obese than the rest of the state, and have far less access to physical activity than nearly all other California counties. Though the town of Mariposa features pockets of dense, walkable fabric, the bulk of the county is defined by conventional auto-centric land use patterns which, when coupled with extraordinary congestion from park visitors, severely limits mobility and detracts from the sense of place.

The community has long supported building a multi-use path along Mariposa Creek, a 40-mile tributary of the San Joaquin River running through the county, and Mariposa County currently has funding from Caltrans to support the development of portions of this path. With a generational opportunity to build an important piece of infrastructure, the team from Mariposa wants to fully explore the role of art and design in shaping the Parkway, learn more about how to leverage art and artists to influence outreach and engagement during its design and planning, and how to use art to compellingly celebrate the stories and experiences of our community.

“The residents of our community need vibrant, attractive spaces to move through and in which to come together,” said Kevin Cann, Mariposa County Supervisor. “Not only that, but over one million visitors a year experience the town of Mariposa on their way to Yosemite National Park. The Mariposa Creek Parkway can be a tremendous resource for folks of all different backgrounds, and we are excited for this opportunity to expand our community’s capacity to maximize the facility’s value.”

Investing in transit fuels local economies across the country

Last week, we traveled to Indiana to bring Republican Rep. Jackie Walorski together with one of the 60 companies in her working-class district who build components for public transportation systems across the country, demonstrating how the public dollars devoted to transit support thousands of manufacturing jobs in communities all across the country.

Rep. Walorski, second from right, touring the floor at Kiel with Don Makarius, assistant chief operating officer for Kiel NA, second from left, and other Kiel managers. Photos courtesy of Rep. Walorski’s office.

At Transportation for America, we talk a lot about the nexus between federal investments in transit and economic prosperity. We do it because whenever federal transit dollars are leveraged with state and local funding to buy new buses, railcars or any component used by a public transit system, economies everywhere benefit, including in smaller towns and rural areas. And that means more jobs, more local tax revenue and more opportunity for communities—even those that may be the least served by public transit.

Last week, we brought Kiel North America together with their Congresswoman, U.S. Representative Jackie Walorski, to talk about the seats they produce in Elkhart, IN for interstate coaches, rail systems like BART in the Bay Area, and their growing business line for commuter buses that operate in larger metropolitan areas across the country.

Business is good in the ten counties that make up Indiana’s 2nd congressional district. Today, according to the Wall Street Journal, Elkhart city and the surrounding communities are experiencing labor shortages, rising home values and increased wages.

The local economy in Elkhart is dominated by RV (recreational vehicles) manufacturing, but Indiana’s 2nd district is also home to the highest concentration in the country of transit manufacturers and suppliers—at least 60—who produce everything from tracks, to seats, windows, communications equipment, wheels and everything else in between.

When large transit properties, like BART and others, are ready to buy, chances are good that Northwest Indiana is on the shopping list.

Nationwide, there are more than 2,700 transit manufacturers and suppliers, located in 49 states, employing more than 15,000 people. Last fall, Transportation for America examined the recent capital expenditures of four transit properties in San Francisco, Chicago, Denver and Portland and found that the capital outlays from just these four transit properties alone benefited communities in 21 states—communities like Elkhart.

View that full report here.

Continuing to make regular, predictable federal investments in transit will buttress local economies all across the country. The pipeline of transit projects in various stages of development awaiting federal grants for construction includes approximately 50 projects in 19 states. This pipeline means reliable business for the transit supply chain and allows companies to open specialized manufacturing facilities, keep workers employed, and have some measure of confidence that their business has the potential for more work in the future.

Kiel has about two-dozen employees today, but they believe they can triple the size of their workforce, given the opportunities already present in public transit marketplace. The pipeline of transit projects is a big deal to their future—the same pipeline that the Trump administration wants to pause indefinitely and eventually cancel entirely.

Thankfully, Congresswoman Walorski has become a champion for federally funded public transit investments. She led efforts in the House to fully fund the sole source of federal support for communities of any size that are expanding or improving public transportation service—new stations, new lines or improved capacity for rail or even bus rapid transit projects.

Her work, and that of her like-minded colleagues is finally paying off. Last month, Congress adopted and the president signed, the federal government’s FY18 spending plan that included $13.5 billion for public transit investments, including $2.6 billion for the transit Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program and $1.5 billion for the TIGER program, both important sources of funding for transit agencies that spend money in places like Elkhart.

All of this is very good news indeed, but the future is far from certain.

Last year, the Trump administration sought to severely reduce and phase out the transit capital program and to eliminate the TIGER program completely. The president’s FY19 budget recommendation seeks the same again. And there’s even a movement afoot by the president and some leadership in the House to potentially rescind portions of that budget deal, which could put transit funding back under the guillotine.

Without continued federal support, transit projects underway could stall, new or planned projects would be postponed or canceled, and transit agencies would scale back or cancel orders of new railcars or buses. The factories and suppliers—like Kiel—that produce or manufacture components for transit systems would have to downsize or shutter without a steady pipeline of projects.

Congress does not have to accept that future for Elkhart or any other community. We urge Congress to follow the lead of their colleague Rep. Walorski and others like her, by continuing to invest in the transit capital and TIGER programs. Maintain and expand funding for public transit investment so the Elkharts of America and thrive and grow.

Photo courtesy of Rep. Walorski’s office.

How should cities price access to their curb spaces and right-of-way?

The second year of our Smart Cities Collaborative—which launched today with 22 cities—will examine how emerging technologies and new mobility options are reshaping the right-of-way and curb space via four key topics. Our fourth and final post taking a quick look at these topics is about how pricing strategies can be employed in service of a city’s long-term outcomes.

Year two of T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative will explore how emerging technologies and new mobility options are reshaping the right-of-way and curb space. Our content and curriculum will be separated into four sub-topics; design, measure, manage, and price. This fourth topic will examine how cities can begin to determine the value of their assets and price them accordingly in an effort to achieve their long-term outcomes. Read about the launch of the Collaborative and the 22 cities selected to participate.

PRICE

As much as urban dwellers have come to rely on app-based ridesourcing services or bikesharing systems, it’s hard to grasp sometimes just how much has changed with urban mobility in such a short period of time. Ten years ago, most cities had what we’d all consider as pretty simple menu of options: Taxis. Personally owned automobilies and bicycles. Public buses and trains. Commuter rail and bus. Your own two feet.

But as new mobility options such as ridesharing, ridesourcing, microtransit, dockless bikesharing and more have entered cities, they’ve placed new demands on the right-of-way and curb space. Since their arrival, cities have struggled to effectively manage private providers and adapt to these new modes. As we explored in our manage post, the time is overdue to explore new management strategies for these assets.

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

With this increasing level of demand for access, many cities have begun to recognize that streets and curbs are some of their most valuable assets—assets they have largely been giving away for free. At the same time, new mobility models and the coming wave of automated vehicles also threaten the viability of various revenue streams at the federal, state and local level. Though this makes new pricing mechanisms attractive solutions to future revenue shortfalls, they can and should be designed as demand management tools first, with new revenue a secondary benefit.

Before cities can begin charging for use, they need to have a better sense of value.

Today, there is no formula or standard for how to determine this value and many are wildly inconsistent when it comes to pricing access to their streets, curbs and sidewalks. Cities charge (often not enough) for curb use for parking, but don’t charge ridesourcing or delivery vehicles using similar space, even as these services are often having greater impacts on congestion and safety. Similarly, cities charge street vendors to set up on the sidewalk, but not for dockless bikeshare or newspaper boxes occupying the space directly next to it.

Without a framework to detemine the actual costs and value of these assets, it’s impossible to appropriately charge for their use and thus difficult to effectively and consistently manage demand and access across modes, departments and use cases.

This year, with the 22 participating cities, the Collaborative will endeavor to get a handle on all the different users of these spaces, which departments are managing the various pieces and how they’re currently valuing their use. To assess the full value of these assets, we’ll nail down expenses associated with building this infrastructure (like concrete, steel and street furniture), evaluate the long-term maintenance costs and examine how these spaces can affect areas of concern, such as congestion, safety and pollution.

Once we develop a better understanding of costs and impacts we can start to develop a formula and derive appropriate pricing levels across modes and departments. We’ll begin with streets, curbs and sidewalks, but our goal is to help cities understand how to measure value and then subsequently price their resources appropriately so they can transfer this to other assets, such as data or vehicle-to-infrastructure technology.

The Collaborative will also explore the various hurdles that come along with developing and implementing pricing strategies—technological, financial and political. We’ll review messaging strategies that have gone wrong and how successful cities have focused the public conversation on behavior change and affecting long-term outcomes such as reducing congestion, vehicle miles traveled, emissions, and creating safer streets.

Sign up for news from the Smart Cities Collaborative.

You don’t have to participate in the Collaborative to hear more about what these 22 cities are learning, what they’re sharing with one another, and what we’re all reading each week when it comes to the rapidly evolving world of urban mobility. Click the button below and tick the box for Smart Cities news before clicking submit.

Sign me up

22 communities selected to participate in the second cohort of T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative

Transportation for America is pleased to announce the 22 communities selected to participate in the second cohort of the organization’s Smart Cities Collaborative program that will continue exploring how emerging technologies and new mobility options can improve urban transportation. Over the coming year, the Collaborative will once again bring together cities to cooperatively tackle the challenges related to implementing smart mobility policies and projects.

“Whether electric scooters, new dockless bikesharing systems, curbside delivery, or ridesourcing services, the pace of innovation is accelerating and these technologies and new mobility options are already on our streets and having an impact in our communities.” said Russ Brooks, Transportation for America’s Director of Smart Cities. “The cities participating in the Collaborative understand that they can’t sit by and let the private sector determine their fate. These cities are eager to engage proactively to ensure that the benefits of these technologies accrue to all parts of society and don’t create a new generation of transportation haves and have-nots.”

This year’s cohort will focus on how emerging technologies and new mobility options are reshaping the right-of-way and curb space, and changing the way we move through our communities.

“Cities have to move people and goods as efficiently as possible to thrive. Streets and curb space are some of the most important assets cities control, yet they’re often undermanaged. There is increasing demand for the right-of-way, and access to the curb is becoming the most desired piece of real estate in a city. Our goal is to empower cities to more effectively manage these assets at their disposal to solve their transportation challenges and become more efficient, safe, and equitable cities,” said Brooks.

Over 50 cities applied to be a part of the Collaborative this year, with 12 of the 16 cities in the first cohort of the Collaborative returning to continue in this second year. The inaugural cohort tackled challenges related to automated vehicles, shared mobility and how to use data to manage complex transportation networks.

“Seattle is excited to be one of the 12 cities returning to the Collaborative for a second year. The Collaborative is a terrific venue for cities to work cooperatively, share our thinking, and develop solutions to our common challenges. During the first year, the Collaborative helped us learn lessons from other cities as we advance and iterate our own new mobility strategies. We have directly employed what we learned from the Collaborative as we anticipate transportation disruption and continue to build a safe, people-centered, equitable, and carbon-free transportation system in Seattle,” said Evan Corey Costagliola, New Mobility Program Manager at the Seattle Department of Transportation.

The Collaborative will hold its first meeting in Denver on April 16-17. Throughout the year the communities will participate in a variety of interactive workshops, both with each other and with industry-leading transportation experts. From there, the participants will receive direct technical assistance and share the results of their projects with the rest of the Collaborative to drive best practices across the country.

The 22 communities participating in the Collaborative in 2018 are:

Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Boulder, CO
Centennial, CO
Gainesville, FL
Houston, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Los Angeles, CA
Madison, WI
Miami-Dade, FL
Minneapolis, MN
New York, NY
Pittsburgh, PA
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
Santa Monica, CA
Seattle, WA
Toronto, ON
Washington, DC
West Sacramento, CA

 

Sign up for news from the Smart Cities Collaborative. You don’t have to participate in the Collaborative to hear more about what these 22 cities are learning, what they’re sharing with one another, and what we’re all reading each week when it comes to the rapidly evolving world of urban mobility. Click the button below and tick the box for Smart Cities news.

Sign me up

What have participants said about the Smart Cities Collaborative?

In 2016, supported by Sidewalk Labs, T4 America created the inaugural Smart Cities Collaborative cohort to help 16 cities proactively harness emerging technologies to improve mobility & quality of life. Here’s what some of the participants from that inaugural class of 16 cities had to say during that first year.

TIGER grants focus on rural areas, recognize the value of complete streets, and ignore transit

Just a month after the Trump administration proposed a budget that would eliminate the competitive TIGER grant program entirely next year, the US Department of Transportation announced the winners of this year’s awards. This year’s winners show a clear shift in priorities — this round is decidedly rural or small town in nature and nearly devoid of transit projects. However, the winners also show that this administration recognizes how smaller-scale complete streets projects bring tremendous value to local communities.

The fiercely competitive but notably small TIGER grant program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects. The federal government has found a smart way to use a small amount of money to incentivize the best projects possible and encourage local investment: TIGER projects brought 3.5 other dollars to the table for each federal dollar awarded through the first five rounds. They’re overwhelmingly multimodal and multi-jurisdictional projects—like rail connections to ports, complete streets, passenger rail, and freight improvements—that are often challenging to fund through the traditional, narrow transportation formula programs.

This intense competition for funds stands in stark contrast to the majority of all federal transportation dollars that are awarded via formulas to ensure that all states or metro areas get a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars. And unlike the old system of congressional earmarks, the projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to ensure that each dollar is spent in the most effective way possible.

As we look through this year’s list of awardees—the ninth group of winners since the program was created in the stimulus package of 2009—five clear themes rise to the top. Here’s what you need to know about this year’s TIGER winners and the status of this valuable program.

#1 Reminder: this could be the last of the TIGER program

Though it’s one of the most fiscally responsible transportation programs administered by USDOT and incredibly small when compared to the overall transportation program, the administration’s budget request for next year completely eliminates TIGER. While the Senate has stepped in to save this program numerous times, they’ll only continue to act if the local leaders who depend on it continue to speak up.

Whatever the pros and cons of the winners, as outlined below, local officials across the country depend on this program to invest in ways that traditional state or federal programs either don’t allow or make too difficult. Once again, this round is full of projects that would have been unlikely to receive funding under the traditional program either due to the project type or project sponsor.

#2 The administration rewards the growing local support for complete streets and main street revitalization

If there’s a clear winner in this round of awardees, it’s for projects that are focused on revitalizing main streets, improving pedestrian safety and access to transportation options, and building a better street framework for creating and capturing value. Projects in Carson City, NV; Immokalee, FL (pictured in graphic above); Burlington, IA, Akron, OH; Frankfort, KY; and Mill City, OR, among a few others, all have a strong complete streets or bicycle and pedestrian component. The administration is to be commended for seeing the connection between investing in traditional, people-focused streets and downtowns as not only a viable economic development strategy, but a vital one.

But the administration can’t choose these projects if they’re not in the applicant pool. And the proliferation of these projects is a testament to the growing movement of local officials who understand that improving safety through low-cost interventions, building a sense of place, investing (or reinvesting) in downtown, and focusing on moving people rather than just vehicles brings a strong economic payoff to their communities. Because of that, they’re investing their own dollars heavily in these projects and the administration is making a wise investment by partnering with them.

#3 More funding for rural projects, but with a loose definition of “rural”

While USDOT says that over 60 percent of the awards go toward rural projects—a stated goal of the Trump administration—it’s probably more accurate to say that most of this funding goes to midsized cities. (They count places like Lincoln, NE—pop. 280,000—as rural.) There was also a clear bias in favor of awarding funds to projects in states that are in the middle of the pack in population, and the most populated states that produce an outsize share of the country’s GDP mostly received very low dollar awards—states like California, New York, Texas, and Illinois.

While funding more “rural” projects is a stated goal of the administration, it’s hard to square with the administration’s current plans to make towns and cities and states pick up more of the funding burden. Rural projects usually bring less local or state money to the table, by DOT’s own admission“Since 2009, the TIGER program has awarded nearly $1.4 billion in federal funding to 171 rural projects across the nation, leveraging an estimated $2.5 billion in non-TIGER funding,” lower than the 3.5 non-federal dollars per TIGER dollar for all projects through the first five rounds. In an ironic twist, these smaller places (and midsized cities, as noted) will be the ones most intensely feeling the squeeze if the administration gets their way on federal transportation funding.

#4 Awards for transit projects were few, keeping with the administration’s overall views on transit

The underlying law’s language (found in the 2017 appropriations bill) requires some level of parity between various modes of transportation:

“…the Secretary shall take such measures so as to ensure an equitable geographic distribution of funds, an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban and rural areas, and the investment in a variety of transportation modes”

Contrary to that language in the law, this batch of TIGER grants only includes a few smaller transit projects, leaving out both the quantity and size of larger transit investments we’ve seen in many past rounds. Though it’s not in step with the intention of the program as crafted by lawmakers, it’s certainly hand-in-glove with the administration’s stated belief that localities should fund transit investments all by themselves. The administration has already pledged to end the capital program for building new transit lines or stations, and these awardees largely reflect that view.

#5 The tradeoff for a project in almost every state is the lack of nationally significant projects

It’s nearly impossible to make an award in almost every state while also funding a handful of larger, transformative, nationally significant projects—projects like the CREATE program (rounds I and IV) to address huge national freight rail bottlenecks in Chicago or the Crenshaw/LAX Light Rail project. This has been a struggle for the TIGER program dating back well into the Obama administration, but this is the tradeoff that comes with trying to get an award for nearly everyone: more smaller awards, and less capacity to invest in big nationally significant projects that have benefits for people far outside of a single city, region or state.


TIGER should represent a way forward

The majority of all federal transportation dollars today are awarded to states and metro areas in a way to ensure everyone gets a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars or how well-conceived their projects are. TIGER operates differently, forcing projects to compete against each other on the merits. Rather than being slated for elimination, this should be a model for the future of transportation funding: formula dollars awarded for repair and maintenance, and then money for any new capacity (of any type) awarded competitively.

Will Congress acquiesce to the administration’s demands to eliminate TIGER? In spite of the administration’s stated opposition to this program, they just funded 41 important projects that would have been difficult to build under the regular program. As stated above, Congress will only continue defending this program as long as local leaders and advocates continue pressing for its survival. Get in touch with your representatives today and urge them to continue supporting this small but vital program.

Senate Democrats’ infrastructure plan provides more funding, but as with the president’s plan, it fails to prioritize repair & maintenance

press release

Upon the release of the Senate Democratic Jobs & Infrastructure Plan, T4A Director Kevin F. Thompson released the following statement:

“We strongly support the Senate Democrats call to increase funding for investments in vital infrastructure, addressing our maintenance backlog and funding transportation alternatives. But many of these programs signal the approach Congress should be, but isn’t, taking with the rest of their proposal: prioritize repair with formula dollars and select expansion projects on a competitive basis.

“It seems that both parties on Capitol Hill are missing an important point on infrastructure. We need to focus much more on what we are funding rather than how much we are spending. Both the President’s infrastructure plan and the Democrats’ plan are silent on how to address the quality of projects chosen and how to overcome the flaws in our current transportation program that produced such a massive national backlog in deferred maintenance and repairs in the first place.

“In contrast with the President’s plan, the Democrats’ plan does provide distinct funding for various categories of infrastructure investment rather than forcing them to cannibalize each other for funding. It encourages more competition rather than indiscriminately doling out the spoils of a finite funding package.

“But neither plan provides any new long-term source of transportation funding or prioritizes new federal dollars toward our backlogs of neglected maintenance. We cannot repair our ‘crumbling’ transportation infrastructure unless we raise new, real money for transportation, and then ensure that money is directed first to fixing our existing networks.

“The Senate Democrats propose funding these increases by making changes to the tax code. Regardless of the merits of tax reform, real, long-term, dedicated funding is necessary. If infrastructure investment is truly a priority, Congress needs to pay for it with new, long-term, stable revenue for transportation that’s derived from the users of the system. If Congress is unwilling to do so, then we should admit that infrastructure investment is not a priority.

“While we appreciate that the Democrats’ plan proposes new transit grants for critical asset repair and a new program for repairing bridges, these programs will fail to accomplish their goals if, at the same time, we fund programs that encourage building new over improving stewardship of existing infrastructure.

“We cannot simply pour new money into the same existing highway and transit formula programs that brought us to this moment. This is more than just an issue of money — if Congress is going to raise new money for transportation, we need to spend it in a new way. Absent any real reform, we’ll merely be empowering states and metro areas to build new things that they can’t afford to maintain over the long-term.”

Smart cities proactively manage their partnerships to drive long-term outcomes

The second year of our Smart Cities Collaborative will tackle how new technologies and new mobility are reshaping the right-of-way and curb space via four key topics. Our third post in a series on these four topics examines how cities can develop public-private partnerships and use curb management strategies to drive long-term outcomes.

As we continue building a forum for collaboration and providing direct technical assistance to a new cohort of cities, the second year of the Collaborative will explore how new technologies and new mobility are reshaping the right-of-way and curb space. The content and curriculum will be separated into four sub-topics; design, measure, manage and price. Our third topic, manage, will cover best practices for establishing public-private partnerships, managing private providers in concert with public transit and using technology to manage curb space dynamically.

Manage

We’re in the midst of the most transformational shift in urban transportation in more than 50 years as new technology and mobility solutions are combining to change the landscape of cities. But, unlike that shift 50 years ago, spurred in part by the public creation of the interstate highway system, this transformation is largely being driven by the private sector. If cities are not mindful and intentional in driving the outcomes they seek, the benefits and costs of these changes will be unevenly and unfairly distributed.

Many cities, however, have often taken a “wait and see” approach. They have been unwilling, or someties unable, to use the regulatory authorities at their disposal to drive the outcomes they seek. To avoid a race to the bottom, cities need to lead the process, make deals, and negotiate with private mobility providers on their terms to ensure the benefits of these changes enhance opportunities for everyone.

Cities have also struggled to work with the private sector as these new models have been deployed in their communities. Much of this is due to the historical structures of cities and the experience gap between cities and the private sector. City governments have typically dealt with procuring multi-decade infrastructure projects and lack processes for regulating or permitting new modes such as transportation network companies, dockless bikeshare and others that want to operate in their jurisdiction and will have a measureable impact on their roads or transit networks.

Additionally, for services they do want or need such as an on-demand, micro-transit service or a data analytics platform, their procurement processes haven’t been designed for six-month pilot projects or rapidly updated digital products. This has been evident over the past decade as cities have signed agreements that don’t ultimately provide them with the data or services that meet their needs.

But, cities are beginning to realize that in addition to increasing their technical capacity in new and different ways, a cultural shift is necessary in order to design and manage these new projects and mobility options, drive the discussion with the private sector and maximize the positive benefits these tools can provide.

This year, the Collaborative will continue to serve as a forum for sharing strategies to effectively manage partnerships with the private sector and address how cities can get what they want and need. We’ll identify the carrots and sticks cities have at their disposal and can leverage in these discussions. We’ll work to standardize templates and agreements that can be shared across cities and adapted for their individual needs while examining some of the innovative procurement models that agencies are using to test new products and services.

As some of the primary assets under a city’s control, we’ll also take a deeper dive into managing road and curb space. Given that different city departments often oversee parking, ridehailing, or urban delivery and rarely collaborate, we’ll review the organizational changes some cities are making to meet this need. We’ll also examine the foundational data inventories that cities are creating to better understand their exisiting curb space, its current uses and how they’re determining demand. Coupling this work with the new street and curb space designs we explored in this post, we’ll help participants develop new strategies to effectively manage their road and curb space through various approaches such as flex-use and loading zones, performance-based parking and other context-sensitive strategies.

A strong component of these strategies will be dynamic pricing, so stay tuned for our next post on our fourth and last Collaborative topic this coming year — Price — and how cities can use pricing as a mechanism to manage demand, shore up municipal revenue streams and achieve their long-term goals.

And stay tuned — we’ll be announcing the cities selected to participate in year two of the Collaborative in just a few weeks.

Over 50 cities applied to join the second year of our smart cities collaborative

Over 50 local governments from nearly 20 states applied to join the second year of our Smart Cities Collaborative, a forum for collaboration and direct technical assistance to cities advancing smart mobility policies and projects.

From November 2016 to the end of 2017, the Collaborative helped 16 cities take a broader look at how these cities and others are grappling with automated vehicles, shared mobility and data analytics. Participant cities tested concepts to understand market potential, assess regulatory and political hurdles, address environmental and equity issues and help refine their approach to implementing smart mobility concepts.

For year two, we received applications from over 50 local governments in nearly 20 states to participate in the Collaborative. Applications came from cities of all sizes and all parts of the country, including places like West Sacramento, CA; Des Moines, IA; Woodstock, VA and New York, NY. We were heartened to see that 14 of our 16 first-year cities reapplied and that many of them are hoping to bring in additional participants, both from their cities but also from other regional agencies and surrounding communities in order to better cooperate on these issues.

Applying cities were asked to reflect on the challenges they are facing as new mobility options such as ridesharing, ridehailing, microtransit, dockless bikesharing and more have come to their communities. Applicants also shared the various approaches they’re taking to design projects to test and understand the impacts of these new models and determine strategies to use them to achieve their long-term outcomes.

All of the applications underscored the continued desire to learn from their peers, develop policies, launch pilot projects, form partnerships across cities and agencies and determine how to maximize the transformational potential of new and emerging technologies. This coming year we’ll sharpen our focus and address how these changes are reshaping the right of way and curb space. Our content and curriculum will be divided between four sub-topics; design, measure, manage and price.

We’ll be announcing the participating communities in the coming weeks and will continue to share what we’re learning through the Collaborative, starting with our first meeting in April. We’re excited to work with these communities and help them collaborate with each other as they develop policies and projects that best use these technologies to achieve their long-term goals.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of February 23rd

Stories You May Have Missed

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week.

  • The math in Trump’s infrastructure plan is off by 98 percent according to a recent study from economists at the University of Pennsylvania. (Washington Post)
  • “Experts Doubt Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Will Boost Economy.” (NY Times)
  • “America’s three infrastructure problems.” (Vox)
  • “The White House is touting a pilot vehicle mileage tax program in Oregon as a reasonable means to fund infrastructure investment.” (The Hill)
  • Lawmakers are concerned at the lack of progress in installing positive train control (PTC) on the nation’s major freight and passenger rail. (The Hill)
  • “Lawmakers Commence Fiscal 2018 Funding Bill Negotiations.” (Transport Topics)

First & Main: An Opportunity for Local Elected Officials to Tell Capitol Hill Their Stories and Fight for Main Street

The corner of First & Main is where everything happens. Whether a small town in a rural area, a tribal community, or a mid-sized city, First & Main is the anchor of it all. While it has a different name in every community, First & Main is where you can find the old train depot that built the town, City Hall, or the corner from which to spot the community’s most beautiful historic buildings.

Do the Trump Administration and Congress understand what America’s struggling small and mid-sized communities need to turn their prospects around? Local elected officials are uniquely positioned to tell federal decision-makers what they need to flourish, and scores of them are uniting behind a new blueprint for prosperity in these smaller and midsized communities.

The nonpartisan First & Main initiative is a coalition of local elected officials from small to mid-sized communities all across the country. Initiated by current and former elected officials, the coalition will fight to protect those federal programs proven to work for local communities, improve the programs that should be more effective, and create new programs to provide local communities with additional resources.

The First & Main Blueprint was prepared based on feedback provided by these local leaders. It contains more than 30 proposals that local elected leaders have told us will help their communities rebuild, reinvest, and remain competitive in today’s economy. A key component of the First & Main Blueprint is its proposals for funding community-scale transportation projects: roads and bridges, Complete Streets, public transit, transit-oriented development, and trails.

Are you an elected official from a small to mid-sized community such as a mayor, city council member, tribal leader, or county board member? Do you know or work with someone who holds such an office? Here is how you (or they) can get involved with First & Main:

  • Read the Blueprint to learn more about the specifics of what we are proposing
  • Sign up for our free kickoff webinar scheduled for March 1 at 3 p.m. Eastern. On the webinar, three mayors will share stories about how federal programs and funding are essential for their communities. We’ll talk more about the campaign’s goals, strategies, and next steps.
  • If you are a local elected official, join First & Main (no cost) to share your story and become a part of this critical effort to save key federal programs benefitting America’s local communities.
  • Ask your local elected officials – mayors, city council members, county board members, tribal leaders, and others – or those you work with, to join First & Main.
  • Travel to DC April 22-24 for a First & Main gathering to talk more in depth about these issues, strategize, and then go to Capitol Hill to lobby Congress regarding the importance of the Blueprint’s proposals.

The program will offer local elected officials from small and mid-sized communities the opportunity to share their stories with the Trump Administration and Congress regarding how federal programs and policies can improve their economic opportunity, revitalize their downtowns, and improve their quality of life. Join First & Main to be part of a coalition that will do just that.

Eight things to know about the president’s budget and infrastructure plan

After promising the release of an infrastructure plan since the early days of his administration over a year ago, President Trump finally released his long-awaited plan for infrastructure investment. Since he did it on the same day he released his budget request for the next fiscal year, it’s worth considering them together and asking: what do these proposals mean for infrastructure?

Here are eight things worth knowing about both the president’s infrastructure plan and his budget for 2019. Read T4America’s full statement on both proposals here.

1) “One cannot claim to be investing in infrastructure on the one hand while cutting it with the other.”

By only including a modest $200 billion in federal investment over ten years, the president’s so-called $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan isn’t a real plan—it’s a hopeful call for local communities, states, and the private sector to invest $1.3 trillion of their own money in infrastructure while the federal government largely sits on the sidelines. Look even deeper and you’ll discover that the $200 billion in federal investment isn’t actually new money overall—it’s mostly sourced from cuts to other programs, including key transportation programs. The president calls for large investments in infrastructure on the one hand while proposing to cut infrastructure programs in the budget with the other hand. Considered together, the infrastructure plan is like getting a bonus from the boss after their new budget just slashed your salary.

2) If the goal is to repair “crumbling” infrastructure, why not require it?

If our infrastructure is “crumbling,” why advance an infrastructure plan that doesn’t do anything to require that states or cities prioritize repair and maintenance with the new funding? Why give out new money that states can spend on costly new infrastructure with decades of built-in maintenance costs when we can’t afford to maintain what we’ve already built? A proposal meant to address America’s crumbling infrastructure almost never mentions maintenance or repair anywhere within it.

“One of the reasons there’s a break in trust between the taxpayer and the federal government is that there’s only so many times you can come before the taxpayer and say, ‘our nation’s roads and bridges are crumbling, please give us more money to fix it,’ and then not dedicate it to fixing it,” noted T4A senior policy advisor Beth Osborne on CBC News on Monday evening. We’ve made this point routinely over the years: Why do we keep spending hefty sums on new roads and new lanes while repair backlogs get ignored?

Little accountability, no performance measures: In addition, though this proposal claims to be outcomes-based, there is almost no mention of actual goals. It proposes to invest new money, but to accomplish what exactly? It includes no requirements to measure how these billions will lead to improved roads, bridges or transit systems, better connect people to jobs and opportunity, or move people and goods more efficiently. There are no requirements to measure performance or hold anyone accountable for accomplishing specific goals with the money.

3) Ends federal support for building or improving public transportation

Just like the president’s first budget proposal released a year ago, this one also calls for an immediate halt to federally supported transit projects by eliminating 100 percent of funding for transit projects in development that don’t already have signed funding agreements with the federal government. This pulls the rug out from under at least 41 cities—many of whom have already raised new transportation revenues from voters at the ballot box—that were fully expecting the federal government to share around 50 percent of the cost. While transit projects could still theoretically compete for funding from the plan’s “incentives” program, they would have to compete against transportation, water, waste, power, and broadband projects for a smaller pool of funding.

Seattle is one of many cities that have raised new transportation revenues for transit at the ballot box with the full expectation of a federal contribution to help complete their projects.

4) Roadway projects will be free of new requirements to create value that would be imposed on transit projects

Value capture is a creative way to finance transit projects by “capturing” some of the increased land value that transit provides and using those anticipated revenues on the front end to pay a share of the costs. It can help fund transit improvements, but it’s not a solution that works everywhere, in part because many states don’t allow it and/or most transit agencies have zero control over land use. This infrastructure proposal treats transit projects differently than all other modes by requiring the use of this financing mechanism. New roads? They won’t even need to create a dime of new value to win funding from new incentive or grant programs, much less capture any of that value to pay for their costs. Like Alabama’s $5.3 billion, 52-mile bypass, known as the Northern Beltline, to be constructed north of Birmingham. At $102 million per mile, the project will be one of the country’s most expensive roadway projects, yet it and projects like it would be exempt from these requirements to create any value to pay a share of the costs.

This top-down requirement would put a burden on new transit projects that is not placed on any other new transportation investment and would essentially halt the development of dozens of smart transit projects across the country. It would also jeopardize funding for capital improvements for more than 400 rural transit providers where value capture is rarely feasible.

5) Cities and states already raising new transportation funding will have to do even more

The federal government hasn’t raised the gas tax since 1993. Since just 2012, 31 states have raised new transportation revenues — mostly by raising or otherwise modifying their fuel taxes. Yet the largest program ($100 billion) in this proposal flips the script and puts the onus on these same local and state taxpayers by changing the federal match on new projects from 80 percent to 20 percent. Asking localities to simply kick in more money would do little to guarantee better projects or even less reliance on federal funding—it’ll just occupy more of the local funding that states or cities could invest elsewhere or spend on long-term maintenance, and could just incentivize huge tolling projects, others with some sort of repayment mechanism, or the sale of public assets.

It either devalues or ignores outright local dollars already raised: This proposal penalizes cities like Indianapolis, Seattle, Raleigh, Albuquerque, Los Angeles, Atlanta and scores of others that have already done the hard work of securing new local funding for transportation. How? Though localities are required to come up with 80 percent of a project’s cost, the plan ignores any funds raised more than three years ago—even if it’s a tax producing new revenue today. And for new funds raised within the last three years, there’s a sliding scale for how much those dollars are worth. The specific percentages aren’t detailed in the plan, but for example, $1.00 raised at the ballot box two years ago might only be worth 0.50¢ toward the 80 percent local share required by this plan. Many of those cities (and the 31 states) would have to raise yet more new funding to qualify.

6) It eliminates TIGER, one of the few competitive programs that exist today

The proposal completely eliminates the fiercely competitive TIGER program. This $500 million grant program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects and one of the most fiscally responsible transportation programs. TIGER projects brought 3.5 other dollars to the table for each federal dollar awarded through the first five rounds. And the competition for funds is in stark contrast to the majority of all federal transportation dollars that are awarded via formulas to ensure that all states or metro areas get a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars. Unlike the old system of congressional earmarks, the projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to ensure that each dollar is spent in the most effective way possible. There’s a reason that TIGER remains so popular with local communities even though around 95 percent of applicants lose in every round—it’s one of the only ways to fund the multimodal projects that are difficult to advance through conventional, narrowly-focused federal programs.

7) Money is set aside for rural areas, but governors will still control it

The plan sets aside $50 billion for rural areas, allocated directly to governors and awarded at their discretion to the projects that they choose. Each governor’s share will be determined via a formula that considers only lane miles and population while purporting to build transportation, water, waste, power, and broadband infrastructure. Is lane-miles an adequate metric for the full range of needs that our rural areas have? Block-granting money to states does not guarantee that local communities will get funding to invest in their highest priority infrastructure projects. Incentivizing cities and towns through competition is proven to be more effective in producing long-term results.

Without this money set aside, rural areas (and smaller cities) would have few chances to successfully win funding from the plan’s $100 billion incentives program. As Aarian Marshall wrote in Wired today, it “would favor applicants that can ‘secure and commit’ continuing funds for their project, including future money for operation, maintenance, and rehab. The ventures, in other words, that can pick up most of the tab. That’s a problem for cities that don’t have steady funding streams, or that find themselves in any of the 42 states that restrict locales’ rights to tax their citizens.” And these smaller areas will never be attractive places for the private investment that this plan assumes will materialize to make up that $1.3 trillion funding gap.

8) Makes long-term cuts to overall transportation funding

Buried in the document is a tiny yet significant detail about scaling down overall transportation spending by as much as $21 billion each year by the end of the decade due to the declining value of the gas tax. So in addition to making cuts to core transportation programs and providing no new revenue for transportation in the infrastructure proposal, the budget actually proposes to reduce transportation investment overall year by year, putting the screws to the cities, towns, and transit properties that depend upon formula funding to operate and maintain existing transportation programs or to make critical capital improvements.


Considered with the president’s FY19 budget request, this infrastructure plan will result in a net reduction in transportation spending and investment. It does not require that we first repair the myriad of assets already in a state of disrepair. It punishes communities that have already stepped up to address their own infrastructure challenges. It leaves rural areas without any guarantees and it hollows out the core funding for transportation that has carried the program for more than a generation. We strongly urge Congress to start over and craft a plan that provides real funding, fixes our current infrastructure inventory, funds smart, locally-driven and supported projects, and requires performance measures that enable taxpayers to understand what benefits they will receive for their investments.

The infrastructure plan that cuts infrastructure funding

After the release of the Trump administration’s long awaited infrastructure plan yesterday (along with their FY19 budget request), Beth Osborne, vice president of technical assistance at T4America, joined CBC News to talk about some of the issues with the plan in particular.

We have numerous concerns about the infrastructure plan, including the complete lack of any new money, the dismantling of existing, popular programs that fund transit infrastructure or pressing local needs (TIGER and transit capital funding), and the complete lack of any mechanism or requirements to ensure that any money spent will go toward fixing our existing infrastructure first.

“One of the reasons there’s a break in trust between the taxpayer and the federal government is that there are only so many times you can come before the taxpayers and say, ‘our nation’s roads and bridges are crumbling, please give us more money to fix it,’ and then not dedicate [the money] to fixing it.”

Watch the full interview with Beth: