Skip to main content

House making final decisions on cuts to TIGER, transit construction & rail this week

With the current federal transportation budget expiring at the end of this month, this week the House is considering a handful of amendments and taking a final vote on the 2018 fiscal year budget. Up for debate are amendments that could improve — or further damage — the House’s already problematic transportation budget for 2018.

With the September 30th deadline rapidly approaching, appropriations committees in both the House and Senate have been debating and setting funding levels for transportation programs for next year, including the discretionary programs that the Trump administration has targeted for cuts (i.e., those not funded by the Highway Trust Fund.)

While the Senate largely rejected the Trump administration’s request for cuts to programs like TIGER, new transit construction, and passenger rail programs (read our detailed breakdown of the current House/Senate bills here), the House’s version of the 2018 budget eliminated TIGER funding and reduced the transit capital program down near levels that would only fund transit projects that already have signed funding agreements in hand.

This week the House is scheduled to consider their final House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill, and there are crucial amendments that could improve the bill by restoring funding for some of these programs — or make the damage far worse.

We’re asking T4America supporters to take action and send a message to their representatives this week urging them to protect and preserve the TIGER competitive grant program, funding for new transit construction, and passenger rail programs that keep towns and cities of all sizes connected to one another. It’s important that the House pass a bill with robust funding for these programs to set their starting point for negotiations with the Senate on the final product.

 

TAKE ACTION

 

Read about the amendments that we’ll be watching closely in the tracker below. Feel free to include information on these amendments as you send emails or make phone calls to your reps, and follow along on Twitter @t4america for updates as the debate begins this week. (Some of these amendments may be rejected by the House Rules Committee before they reach the floor — they are expected to only allow a few amendments for full floor consideration.)

Logged-in T4America members can read our detailed summary of the House THUD appropriations bill and vote below.

[member_content]Members can read T4America’s full members-only memo here.[/member_content]

NumberSponsorDescriptionOutcome
7Maxine Waters (D-CA)Provides $7.5 billion for the TIGER program. Ruled out of order
8Maxine Waters (D-CA)Provides $550 million for the TIGER program, includes the current TIGER project eligibility criteria, specifically requires the Secretary to award the funds using the 2016 NOFO criteria, and requires that the Secretary distributes the grants 225 days after the enactment of the bill. Ruled out of order
13Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Provides $500 million for the TIGER program. Ruled out of order
66Rod Blum (R-IA)Provides $200 million for the TIGER program and reduces HUD tenant rental assistance by $200 million as an offset. Ruled out of order
46Mark Amodei (R-NV)Requires the Secretary of Transportation to continue administering the current transit Capital Investment Grant Program and enter into a grant agreement with any Small Starts project that has satisfied the current eligibility requirements. Ruled out of order
38Darren Soto (D-FL)Increases the amount of funding for Small Starts funding by $48 million and decreases funding for intercity passenger rail projects by the same amount as an offset. Withdrawn
48Mo Brooks (R-AL)Eliminates funding for Amtrak's National Network only.Failed by a vote of 128-293
50Mo Brooks (R-AL)Eliminates both the funding for Amtrak's Northeast corridor and Amtrak's National Network.Ruled out of order
51Mo Brooks (R-AL)Eliminates funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor onlyRuled out of order
54Jim Himes (D-CT)Increases funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor account by $30 million and decreases essential air service funding by $30 million as an offset. Ruled out of order
83Ted Budd (R-NC)Eliminates the $900 million allocation for the Amtrak gateway program, increases funding for national New Starts Projects by $400 million and applies savings from the elimination of the TIGER Grant program to deficit reduction.Failed by a vote of 159-260
78Al Green (D-TX)Restores $250,000 in funding for the Department of Transportation Office of Civil Rights and reduces U.S. DOT salary and expenses by $250,000 as an offset.Ruled out of order

TIGER amendments

T4America supports efforts to fund TIGER because it is a crucial program that gives local governments direct access to federal dollars for innovative projects. TIGER projects are 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 formula programs. However, T4America opposes paying for a TIGER program by cutting other necessary programs like the HUD tenant rental assistance program. Recent appropriations bills show that there is enough resources to sufficiently fund both of these two important programs.

Transit construction grants

T4America supports legislative language that increases the likelihood that the transit capital program will continue operating as it should and also moves future Small Starts projects forward by ensuring these projects get grant agreements when they are ready. T4America opposes proposals to offset funding for Small Starts by taking money from intercity passenger rail.

Passenger rail

T4America opposes eliminating funding for passenger rail, which is crucial to the economy vitality of our nation and communities across our country. The full national network provides mobility options for and acts as an economic catalyst to small and rural communities across the country. For many residents in these communities, the Amtrak connection is their primary way of traveling around the country, especially in areas that are losing Essential Air Service. Similarly, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor is the primary travel option for millions of people traveling that congested corridor every year. Not only does it take cars off our congested roadways, benefiting train and road users alike, but is a huge economic driver for communities located along the Corridor. Cutting funding for Amtrak’s National Network and Northeast Corridor would decrease our nation’s prosperity, harm the economic vitality of communities that Amtrak serves, and greatly lower the amount of personal mobility and freedom that people that use Amtrak currently have. The House of Representatives rightly voted down these amendments two years ago and should do so again.

T4America opposes cutting funding from the Essential Air Service program to pay for the Northeast Corridor. While rail funding is important to the urban communities along the corridor and our nation’s economy as a whole, we need both and T4America opposes amendments that pit one infrastructure priority against another.

U.S. DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION House FY2018 APPROPRIATIONS BILL AMENDMENT SUMMARY

As of September 5th 2017

INTRODUCTION

On Monday July 17th, the House Appropriations Committee marked up and passed the House Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The House THUD bill would appropriate $17.8 billion in discretionary FY 2018 funding to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), a $646 million decrease from the FY 2017 funding level. The full text of the House draft bill can be found here.

The THUD bill is part of a package of six appropriations bills that the full House of Representatives will consider together, and we expect that the House will consider this package during the week of September 4th. The House Rules Committee is scheduled on Tuesday September 5th to consider the 89 amendments proposed to the THUD bill and decide what amendments to make “in order” and advance to the full House of Representatives for consideration.

We urge you to call your Representatives and make your voices heard on the below amendments that the House of Representatives may consider in the near future.

TIGER

Current Bill: The House FY 2018 bill eliminates funding for the TIGER program, which was funded at $500 million in FY 2017.

Amendments Proposed:

Maxine Waters (D-CA) Amendment #1: Provides $7.5 billion for the TIGER program.

Maxine Waters (D-CA) Amendment #2: Provides $550 million for the TIGER program, specifically requires the Secretary to award the funds using the 2016 notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) criteria, and requires that the Secretary distributes the grants 225 days after the enactment of the bill.

Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Amendment: Provides $500 million for the TIGER program.

Rod Blum (R-IA) Amendment: Provides $200 million for the TIGER program and reduces HUD tenant rental assistance by $200 million as an offset.

T4America’s Position: We SUPPORT efforts to fund TIGER because it is a crucial program that gives local governments direct access to federal dollars for innovative projects. TIGER projects are 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 underlying formula programs.

However, we OPPOSE paying for a TIGER program by cutting the HUD tenant rental assistance program, which is also a crucial program. There is enough money, as evident by past appropriations bills that fund both, to sufficiently fund these two important programs.

New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity (Capital Investment Grant Program)

Current Bill: The House bill allocates $1.75 billion to the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, which is $660 million less than the FY 2017 enacted funding level of $2.4 billion. It is also $549 million less than the authorized level for the program in the FAST Act. Of this $1.75 billion, $1.008 billion is set-aside for New Starts projects that have full funding grant agreements (FFGAs), $145.7 million for Core Capacity projects, and $182 million for Small Starts projects.

Of the remaining CIG funding, $400 million would fund “joint Amtrak-public transit projects.” This language indicates that the Subcommittee intends the funding to go to the Gateway project, a rail improvement project in the Northeast Corridor. With all this funding dedicated to Gateway, there would be no remaining funding would be available for any of the CIG projects that anticipate getting an FFGA signed in 2018 or late 2017.

The House bill also includes language directing the USDOT Secretary to “continue to administer the Capital Investment Grant Program in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of” the law, including directing the “Secretary to continue to advance eligible projects into project development and engineering in the capital investment grant evaluation.” Basically, when CIG projects become eligible to move along in the pipeline, this language requires the Secretary to advance them. The Committees included this language because the Administration has stated a desire to block funding for any new CIG projects by not advancing or taking in new projects into the program. While this language challenges that approach, under the House bill, the lack of funding available for additional New Starts projects would effectively prevent new projects from moving forward until at least 2019.

Amendments Proposed:

Darren Soto (D-FL) Amendment: Increases the amount of funding for small starts funding by $82 million and decreases funding for intercity passenger rail projects by $82 million as an offset.

Mark Amodei (R-NV) Amendment:  Requires the Secretary of Transportation to continue administering the current Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program in accordance with current law and requires the USDOT secretary to enter into a grant agreement with any small starts project that has satisfied the current eligibility requirements of the small starts program.

T4America Position: We OPPOSE proposals to offset funding for small starts by taking money from intercity passenger rail funding, which is also important. There is enough money, as evident by past appropriations bills, to sufficiently fund both programs and we should not be cutting funding from one program to fund the other.

We SUPPORT legislative language that increases the likelihood that the CIG program will continue operating as it should and also moves future small starts projects forward by ensuring these projects get grant agreements when they are ready.

Amtrak, CRISI, State of Good Repair, and REG

Current Bill: The House FY 2018 bill provides $1.4 billion for Amtrak. Of this, $1.1 billion is reserved for the National Network, which is consistent with the FAST Act authorized amount, and $328 million for the Northeast Corridor (NEC), which is a decrease from the $515 million authorized amount in the FAST Act.

The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program is funded under the House bill at $25 million, a decrease from the $230 million authorized under the FAST Act and less than half of the $68 million that the program received in FY 2017. The draft bill does not provide funding for the Restoration and Enhancement Grants (REG) program, which authorized at $20 million under the FAST Act and funded at $5 million in FY 2017..

The House FY 2018 bill also provides $500 million for Federal State Partnership State of Good Repair grants, significantly above the $175 million authorized for FY 2018. In spending this funding, the bill directs USDOT to “first give preference to eligible projects for which the environmental impact statement required under the National Environmental Policy Act and design work is already complete at the time of the grant application review, or to projects that address major critical assets which have conditions that pose a substantial risk now or in the future to the reliability of train service.” This language indicates that funding would be directed to the Gateway’s Portal North Bridge and Hudson River Tunnel projects. Overall, the Gateway project could receive $900 million in grant funding under the bill – about one sixth of the $5.4 billion in discretionary appropriations for non-aviation programs.

Amendments Proposed:
Mo Brooks (R-AL) Amendment #1: Eliminates funding for Amtrak’s National Network only.

Mo Brooks (R-AL) amendment #2: Eliminates both the funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and Amtrak’s National Network.

Mo Brooks (R-AL) Amendment #3: Eliminates funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor only

Jim Himes (D-CT) Amendment:  Increases funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor account by $30 million and decreases essential air service funding by $30 million as an offset.

Ted Budd (R-NC) Amendment: Eliminates the $900 million allocation for the Amtrak gateway program, increases funding for national New Starts Projects by $400 million and applies savings from the elimination of the TIGER Grant program to deficit reduction.

T4America’s Position: We STRONGLY OPPOSE the elimination of funding for Amtrak, which is crucial to the economy vitality of our nation and communities across our country. The National Network provides mobility options for and acts as an economic catalyst to small and rural communities across the country. For many residents in these communities, the Amtrak connection is their primary way of traveling around the country, especially in areas that are losing Essential Air Service. Similarly, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor is the primary travel option for millions of people traveling the congested Northeast Corridor every year. Not only does it take cars off our congested roadways, benefiting train and road users alike, but the Northeast Corridor is a huge economic driver for communities located along the Corridor. Cutting funding for Amtrak’s National Network and Northeast Corridor would decrease our nation’s prosperity, harm the economic vitality of communities that Amtrak serves, and greatly lower the amount of personal mobility and freedom that people that use Amtrak currently have. The House of Representatives rightly voted down these amendments two years ago and should do so again.

We also OPPOSE funding for the Northeast Corridor by taking funding from the Essential Air Service program. While Northeast corridor rail funding is important to the urban communities along the corridor and our nation’s economy as a whole, the essential air service program is important to many rural communities that would not have airline service otherwise. Our transportation system should and can meet the needs of both our urban and rural communities and this amendment would needlessly cause a divide between urban and rural communities when we need all of our communities united in a push for greater infrastructure funding overall.

Finally, we OPPOSE amendments that pit one infrastructure priority against another one.

Other Amendments To Watch:

Kevin Brady (R-TX) Amendment: Prohibits federal funding, including a grant or loan agreement, for the development or construction of high-speed rail, with non-interoperable technology, in the State of Texas.

T4America’s Position: We OPPOSE efforts to limit the ability of the federal government to advance high-speed rail in Texas. Texas currently has an exciting privately led effort underway to build high-speed rail between Houston and Dallas. While the private group leading the effort has indicated they don’t have plans to seek financial support from the federal government, we shouldn’t prohibit the federal government from providing financial support if the need arise and there are benefits to providing that financial support. The federal government provides billions of dollars in funding to other modes of transportation, including highway and other transit projects, so the federal government shouldn’t be prohibited from providing funding in this case if it becomes a good idea to do so.

Jamie Herrera-Butler (R-WA) Amendment: Prohibits federal funds from being used to establish or collect tolls on Interstate 5 or Interstate 205 in the state of Washington or Oregon.

T4America’s Position: We OPPOSE efforts to limit the ability of Washington State or Oregon to use tolling as a financing option for infrastructure projects. Congress hasn’t raised the gas tax since 1991 and therefore there is a national funding crisis for transportation. Because Congress has repeatedly been unable to step up to the plate, States increasingly have taking the lead and either raised their gas tax or found other innovative solutions, including tolling, to raise revenue to fund transportation and other infrastructure projects. Congress shouldn’t prohibit states from taking much needed steps, including tolling, to solve a problem that Congress has so far refused to solve.

Al Green (D-TX) Amendment: Restores $250,000 in funding for the Department of Transportation Office of Civil Rights and reduces USDOT salary and expenses by $250,000 as an offset

T4America’s Position: We SUPPORT efforts to maintain funding for the Office of Civil Rights within USDOT. Unfortunately even today, there are still many equity issues in the way we fund transportation projects and the individual projects and modes of transportation that we do ultimately fund. The Office of Civil Rights is crucial in our effort to ensure that we solve the equity challenges and gaps that still exist in our transportation system today.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of September 1st

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.

  • “President Trump’s infrastructure package will be broken up into three pieces, with the largest chunk of funding dedicated to projects that already have some private or local money secured.” (The Hill)
  • “Trump infrastructure package could be stretched too thin.” (The Hill)
  • “White House wants to help states, cities offload infrastructure.” (Reuters)
  • The House of Representatives will vote on automated vehicle legislation next week. (Reuters)
  • “Governing Examines How Better Bus Service Became ‘“The Hottest Trend In Transit.”’ (Governing, via Streetsblog)
  • A coalition has formed to support Nashville Mayor Megan Barry’s proposed transit referendum in 2018. (Tennessean)

Passing Oregon’s transportation package was just the beginning of the hard work

Governor Kate Brown is conducting signing ceremonies in communities throughout Oregon this week to celebrate the passage of Oregon’s transportation package. While the governor, legislature, and stakeholders are enjoying this victory lap on a big legislative effort, the hard work of implementing the bill is yet to come.

“The transportation package is truly a roadmap to Oregon’s future. Let’s keep Oregon moving forward.” Gov. Kate Brown speaking at a signing ceremony earlier this week.

HB 2017 represents a big investment in transportation for Oregon – $5.3 billion over 10 years, with over $1 billion in state dollars dedicated to transit. But there are many questions remaining about how that funding will be spent.

Over the 10-year timeframe the package dedicates almost $800 million for a variety of earmarks; however, most earmarks are not cost-specific, shifting numerous critical decisions to later dates. Instead, each region receives a determined amount of funding for multiple projects.

This lack of specificity could be a curse or a blessing. Oregon’s DOT and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) could interpret the lack of specificity as flexibility to spend designated dollars more effectively, like scoping projects to maximize return on investment. But to do so, they’ll need to apply “practical solutions” effectively.

The bill more than triples state funding for public transit. This will require the OTC to develop and finalize rules in less than a year for rationally distributing over $100 million each year in new funding to a wide variety of transit agencies — urban and rural, large and small. How will the OTC and local transit agencies quickly develop a process to demonstrate accountability and transparency in distributing and using that funding effectively?

A big challenge for implementers of this bill is that it’s not big enough to address everything. While the bill includes substantial new funding for repair, many roads and bridges in the state will continue to deteriorate. The freeway bottlenecks addressed in the bill are only a small subset of those in the Portland region, and may become clogged again due to induced demand in a few years. Will the public understand the limits of the package the legislature passed, even as they see their taxes increase?

The bill requires study and possible implementation of congestion pricing on major freeways in Portland. ODOT is already hiring for new positions to tackle this challenge. Congestion pricing (also called value pricing) has the potential to address many of Oregon’s congestion challenges in a fundamental way, but that doesn’t necessarily make it any easier. While shown to be highly effective in several cases, value pricing is politically difficult and a new technical challenge for Oregon.

Passing the bill was a huge success, but that was just part of what’s needed.

If Oregon’s leaders don’t construct a strong framework for accountability and measuring performance, it’ll be like making a great pass but then kicking the ball back into their own goal. Oregon’s work on this transportation bill is far from done, and those involved in passing the bill have much work to do to deliver on its promise to Oregonians.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 25th

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.

  • President Trump has dropped plans to form an infrastructure council that would have advised him on the infrastructure plan his administration is putting together. (Bloomberg)
  • “The Trump administration is seeking input from rural communities around the U.S. as it assembles a $1 trillion infrastructure package.” (The Hill)
  • The U.S. Senators from New Jersey and New York have called on U.S. DOT to revisit their plan to withdraw a proposed regulation to test rail and truck operators for sleep apnea. (Progressive Railroading)
  • Our partners, the National Complete Streets Coalition (NSCS), did a question and answer session with a board member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on their new report documenting that 31% of all deaths on our roadways are due to speeding. The report provides recommendations on how to reduce deaths. (NCSC, Streetsblog)
  • Asset Recycling an Alternative Approach to P3s. Learn more about the practice of selling or leasing existing, publicly-owned infrastructure and using the proceeds to pay for building or maintaining other infrastructure. Read T4A member summary here.

Webinar recap: What is asset recycling?

Catch up with our webinar on Asset Recycling: An Alternative Approach to P3s with the full recording of the presentation.

In light of the current administration’s intense focus on public-private partnerships (P3s), last week we discussed a specific type of P3 known as asset recycling, the practice of selling or leasing existing, publicly-owned infrastructure and using the proceeds to pay for building or maintaining other infrastructure.

Along with T4America expert Beth Osborne, Robert Puentes, President and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation, discussed the strengths, weaknesses and potential pitfalls of this approach for transportation, and shared three specific case studies from Australia, Virginia, and Indiana.

View the full session below.

Is your organization a Transportation for America member?  Transportation for America is dedicated to building strong coalitions and delivering policy wins, funding opportunities, and more to our members. Proudly supporting public entities, businesses, non-profit organizations, and universities, our members receive exclusive transportation policy information and a host of other benefits. Contact us about joining today. 

T4A members can read the full summary on asset recycling here. (You may need to log in first.)

Elected officials and local organizations: Support TIGER & public transit funding

Facing the prospect of severe cuts from the Trump administration and Congress, T4America is looking for elected officials and organizations to show their support for investing in smart projects to move goods, move people and support the local economies that our nation’s prosperity is built on.

Updated 9/6/2017 9:00 a.m. — The letter is closed. We’ll publish the final letter and share the signatories soon. Thanks!

Calling all elected officials, local, civic and business leaders, and local, regional or state organizations! Sign a letter urging those currently assembling the federal transportation budget for the upcoming year (FY 2018) to prioritize funding for TIGER competitive grants, new transit construction, and passenger rail programs.

Read the full letter and sign it today — we’re aiming to deliver it before the end of August. Ed note: This letter is intended for organizations and is not open for individuals, other than elected officials at any level.

(letter is closed)

Where do we stand in the budget process?

For these three programs, this simple chart below shows four things: the current funding levels for this year, what the President proposed in his budget earlier this year, and what was recently approved by appropriations committees in the House and the Senate.

Enacted 2017 levelsPresident Trump's request for 2018House 2018 AppropriationsSenate 2018 Appropriations
TIGER Grants$500 million$0$0$550 million
Transit Capital Grants$2.4 billion$0$1.75 billion$2.133 billion
Amtrak & passenger rail$1.495 billion$795 million

(All cuts come from eliminating federal funding for all long-distance routes)		$1.4 billion$1.6 billion
TOTAL THUD FUNDING$57.65 billion$47.4 billion$56.5 billion$60.058 billion

As you can see, while committees in the Senate ignored the president’s call to eliminate TIGER and funding for new transit construction outright, those final decisions will be made by Congress as they debate the budget on the floor and then try to reconcile their different versions. (Worth noting: The House proposed eliminating TIGER funding and a barebones budget for keeping in-progress transit projects moving, which means that’s their starting point on negotiations.)

What we’re asking for is for Congress to approve a budget that fully funds the FAST Act, the current transportation authorization, already agreed to by Congress and approved by a bipartisan vote back in 2015.

More background is below:

TIGER

The majority of all federal transportation dollars 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.

The TIGER program has illustrated a productive way to use a small amount of money (about $500 million annually since 2009) to incentivize smarter projects based on their merits. This fiercely competitive program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects. Projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to spend the dollars more effectively. They also bring more private, local, or state dollars to the table. Through the first seven rounds, each TIGER dollar brought in 3.5 non-federal dollars, in contrast to federal money for building new roads, for example, which only bring in about 20 state/local cents for each 80 federal cents.

Transit Capital Investment Grants

The Transit Capital Investment Grants program (often broadly referred to as New Starts) supports metro areas of all sizes that are investing their own money in building or expanding transit service.

While making the case for eliminating the program, the Trump Administration recently stated that “localities should fund these localized projects,” but local voters and leaders are doing that already, putting their own skin in the game to meet the growing demand for well-connected locations served by transit. At the ballot box last November alone, voters approved more than $200 billion dollars in tax increases to invest in these projects. But cities of all sizes are counting on the federal government to continue supporting these bottom-up efforts, as they’ve done for decades. Eliminating this program or even just reducing its funding will threaten their economic prospects and their ability to satisfy the booming demand from residents and employers alike for well-connected locations served by transit.

Passenger rail

President Trump proposed cutting Amtrak’s budget nearly in half, with nearly all cuts coming from eliminating long-distance passenger rail service. Funding for the Northeast Corridor would survive, as would the funding for state-supported routes.

But neither chamber heeded this call from the administration: the House approved slightly less funding compared to last year, while the Senate provided the full amount outlined in the FAST Act, allocating competitive funds for safety, state of good repair for the Northeast Corridor, and operating and capital support for restored or new passenger service throughout the rest of the country.

A Colorado city in the Smart Cities Collaborative partners with Uber for a “quicker way to deploy transit to our residents”

Lone Tree, Colorado, one of the 16 members of our Smart Cities Collaborative, successfully launched a new pilot project last week. The small Denver suburb is evolving their existing fixed-route circulator served by four small buses by adding an on-demand component through a partnership with Uber.

Screenshot from the Lone Tree Link’s “How to Ride” video. http://www.lonetreelink.com/link-on-demand

For nearly three years, the city of Lone Tree southeast of Denver has been operating a fixed-route shuttle line every ten minutes on a loop that connects a Denver RTD light rail station with most of the city’s major employers. The Lone Tree Link has been funded through a unique public-private partnership that includes some of those employers. This helps cover the cost and provide the rides for free to customers, but running four buses on a predictable loop and maintaining ten-minute headways also limits the reach of the service.

In an evolution for the service, last week the city launched Lone Tree Link On Demand, which pairs Uber’s technology with the city’s vehicles and drivers to expand that service to more residents and increase accessibility. Now through the end of December anyone can use the Uber app to hail a Lone Tree Link shuttle for a free ride between any two points within the City of Lone Tree.

Screenshot from the Lone Tree Link’s “How to Ride” video. http://www.lonetreelink.com/link-on-demand

“We wanted to extend the reach of the successful circulator,” Seth Hoffman, the city manager of Lone Tree, told T4America last week. For the fixed-route service, “to get the headways we wanted to achieve, we had to keep the initial route narrow in scope. But that meant that it served employers but didn’t really serve retailers or residents. Putting it on demand makes it available to every address in the city.”

The genesis of Lone Tree’s partnership with Uber came about through the Smart Cities Collaborative.

“Our inclusion in the Smart Cities Collaborative got us in the door with Uber,” said Jeff Holwell, the economic development director of Lone Tree, referring to the ‘Industry Day’ portion of the Collaborative. “That connected us with Uber’s Denver office, which is what made this happen.”

“We were really floundering before that meeting,” Hoffman told us, but the connection with Uber at the Collaborative meeting helped them clear the final hurdle.

“Early on, we thought we’d find someone to help us develop our own app and start from scratch. But what we realized based on others’ experiences in the Collaborative, and through our contacts with T4A, was that smartphone real estate is really hard to compete with. If we could find someone that’s doing it and doing it well, that’s a quick path to our pilot.”

This partnership with Uber — which is as much a pilot for the private company as it is for the city — has simplified some of those tech issues. For example, as Holwell noted, adding one of the city’s extra shuttles to the service is “so easy with Uber’s technology — [the service] is as scalable as Uber is and they have incredible technology that we don’t have to create or update.”

The Denver Post covered the launch last week, and included a story that illustrates how the expanded service allows the city to connect residents and visitors to even more destinations in the city of about 10,000 people:

Divya Sheshathri and her friend Mugdha Maneesh used the service on Tuesday to get from Sheshathri’s home on Park Meadows Drive to her husband’s office on the Charles Schwab campus. They used it again to get from Schwab to Park Meadows mall for afternoon shopping. “It’s a very good service,” said Sheshathri, who does not own a car. “Without this it would be very hard to get around. We’re comfortable walking, but not in this hot sun.”

For the pilot, Holwell said that they removed one of the four buses from the fixed route and reassigned it to the on-demand service, allowing the city to better calibrate their service with the need. And the returns have been positive thus far.

“There was an immediate effect on day one,” Holwell said. “We’re already getting more ridership on that one vehicle than it was providing on the fixed route.”

While operating the fixed-route service is still their “bread and butter,” according to Holwell, with an additional RTD light rail station slated to open in 2019 just to the south that will replicate a portion of the fixed route service, shifting all of their resources to an on-demand service could be the roadmap for the future.

“We only operate during weekdays during office hours because it doesn’t make sense to run on weekends through empty office parks,” Holwell said. And even then, the fixed-route Link shuttles are obviously more heavily used at certain times like the start and end of the workday, leaving excess capacity during the day while they carry fewer passengers. With an entirely on-demand service, the city could better utilize their capacity and reduce empty miles traveled, which is one of their broader goals for the new on-demand service.

Lone Tree’s leaders are proactively using technology to become the kind of place they want to be long-term. And finding ways to better utilize their existing resources to serve residents, visitors and employers — whether transit vehicles or roadway space — is what this project is all about.

“Our big picture goal is to leverage the assets that we already have,” Hoffman said. “We can’t build additional lanes to fit more cars, so we’re going to try to use the lanes we have more efficiently. People are taking it to restaurants and taking it shopping, which helps out the local economy. As a medium dense suburban community, the density isn’t there in a way that would make a [larger] fixed route system work efficiently. This is a quicker way to deploy transit to our residents.”

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 18th

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.

  • Driving Community Change, The National Urban League and Lyft Inc. are joining forces to advance ride-hailing services for every community, especially those that are underserved. (Morning Consult)
  • Traffic deaths down slightly, but still historically high. Traffic deaths have declined slightly this year but are still higher than two years ago, according to preliminary estimates.(The Hill)
  • Public forum will explore TOD in Chicago. (Curbed Chicago)

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 10th

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. 

  • President “Trump says he may not work with Dems on infrastructure” but still expects bipartisan support for any plan his administration proposes. (The Hill)
  • “Self-driving cars could transform jobs held by 1 in 9 U.S. workers” (Marketwatch)
  • “Salt Lake City seeks major transit improvements, but money could be a roadblock.” (Salt Lake Tribune)
  • New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says that New York will actively consider congestion pricing in New York City. (NY Times)
  • The Washington Post looks at the transit renaissance going on in Los Angeles (Washington Post)

An exciting time for bus rapid transit

A new study found that BRT in Eugene, OR had a positive impact on the livability of the surrounding communities. (Photo credit: Lane Transit District)

Investments in high-capacity public transit such as light rail and subways continue to demonstrate their ability to substantially increase property values along transit alignments. But can we say the same about buses?

Interest in bus rapid transit (BRT) is booming across the country as an effective and more affordable transit investment. Yet little research has been completed on their economic impacts in the U.S., partially because only a limited number of BRT projects have been completed here. Elected officials, real estate developers, and other key decision-makers are eager for more information on whether investments in BRT will pay off in their own communities.

The National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC), in partnership with Transportation for America, released an early study last year that found that BRT can indeed generate economic development, attract jobs, retails, and affordable housing.

Building on that research, NITC recently published a new study that takes a closer look at the impact of one specific BRT system. Researchers examined the Emerald Express (EmX) — a BRT system that connects downtown Eugene to Springfield, Oregon — and found that the EmX line improved the livability of the surrounding communities:

“The EmX line had a statistically significant positive impact on property values, which stands to benefit the community as a whole: the related taxes can be used to pay for transportation and other infrastructure, further enhancing the economic development of the community.”

This is an exciting time for BRT in the U.S. — BRT projects are currently underway in dozens of cities, several of which are taking part in the FTA TOD Technical Assistance Initiative. Visit the TODresources.org hub to access a trove of research on how to maximize the development potential of BRT corridors.

Recent TOD news

Here are a few things that have been happening this week with TOD projects across the country.

(Cross-posted from TODresources.org)

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 4th

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. 

  • “Infrastructure borrowing drops as U.S. states await” details on President Trump’s infrastructure plan. (Reuters)
  • Amid growing frustration with the lack of details from the Trump administration about their infrastructure plan, Congressional committees are moving ahead gathering input and drafting their own plans. (The Hill)
  • The Atlantic Magazine dives into why Congressional Republicans are having trouble passing a Fiscal-Year 2018 budget resolution and what it means for their legislative agenda, including tax reform. (The Atlantic)
  • The Federal Rail Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have withdrawn a proposed regulation from the Obama administration that would have required railroad and truck companies to test employees for sleep apnea. (USA Today)
  • Senators from New York and New Jersey have prevented confirmation of certain U.S. DOT nominees because of a dispute with U.S. DOT on the amount of federal involvement in the Gateway project that would build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City. (Cetus/Wall Street Journal)
  • U.S. DOT has announced the winners $79 million in FASTLANE/INFRA grant awards for small projects. Awards for large projects under FASTLANE/INFRA have been delayed until the fall and U.S. DOT is requiring entities seeking awards for large projects to resubmit their application. (Progressive Railroading)

Summary of FY2018 Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban Development “THUD” Appropriations Bill

On Thursday July 27, the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations approved the fiscal year 2018 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is funded at $19.47 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2018. This is $978 million above the FY2017 enacted level. The Committee’s priority is placed on programs that improve the safety, reliability, and efficiency of the transportation system.

The Senate Appropriations Committee proposes to increase funding for the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program after the President and the House Appropriations Committee proposed to eliminate it. Instead, the bill increases funding to $550 million – $50 million more than the FY 2017 funding level. The bill also reserves 30 percent of the awards for rural areas.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Susan M. Collins in her opening statement at the markup highlighted that TIGER is a proven program that funds competitive grants for state and local road, transit, port, and railroad construction projects. “Last year, 585 applicants from all 50 states and territories requested nearly $9.3 billion in assistance, demonstrating the need for and popularity of this program. Only 40 of these applications could be funded,” said Chairman Collins.

The committee expressed strong support for the TIGER program in the report that accompanies the appropriations bill and required the Trump Administration to apply the criteria used in FY2016 to the FY2018 round of TIGER.

The Senate bill allocates a total of $2.133 billion for the transit Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program, which is $279.7 million less than the FY 2017 enacted level and $900.9 million more than the President’s budget request. Of the $2.133 billion, 1.008 billion is set aside for New Starts projects that already have full funding grant agreements (FFGAs), and $454 million is reserved for new New Starts FFGAs. Additionally, $149.9 million is reserved to complete funding for previously funded Small Starts projects that do not have signed agreements, and $168.4 million is reserved for new Small Starts projects. Finally, $200 million is set aside to cover the cost of the two existing Core Capacity projects, and $145.7 million is reserved for new Core Capacity FFGAs.

The Senate Bill includes language directing the USDOT Secretary to “continue to administer the Capital Investment Grant Program in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of” the law, including directing the “Secretary to continue to advance eligible projects into project development and engineering in the capital investment grant evaluation.” Basically, when CIG projects become eligible to move along in the pipeline, this language requires the Secretary to advance them. The Committee included this language in response to the Administration’s budget proposal that stated it would only fund transit projects with an existing FFGA.

The appropriations bill also fully funds the highway, transit, and safety programs authorized by the FAST Act and funded through the Highway Trust Fund. The bill includes $45 billion for the Federal-aid Highways Program. In addition, the bill continues to grant State Departments of Transportation permission to repurpose old, unused earmarks for important infrastructure projects.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is funded at $1.97 billion, $122 million above the FY 2017 enacted level. The bill provisions include $358.4 million for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and $1.242 billion for Amtrak’s National Network, which is enough funding to continue service for all current routes. The bill also provides $250.1 million to fund FRA’s safety, operations, research and development activities. The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Grants Program is funded at $92.5 million, of which $35.5 million is for initiation or restoration of passenger rail. The Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Grants program is funded at $26 million and the Restoration and Enhancement Grants program is funded at $5 million.

Additionally, the committee made a major statement to the administration about policy in its appropriations report (page 8 and 9) and the importance of stable and robust transportation funding.

“The President’s request includes $200,000,000,000 to leverage $1,000,000,000,000 in new investment in the Nation’s physical infrastructure. This proposal is expected to include policy, regulatory, and legislative proposals, ranging from changes to existing programs, to the creation of new programs and initiatives to reshape how the Federal government invests, permits, and collaborates on infrastructure. To date, no such proposal has been submitted to the Committee. While the Committee fully supports additional spending for our Nation’s infrastructure, it strongly disagrees with the Administration’s assertion that providing Federal dollars for infrastructure has created, ‘an unhealthy dynamic in which State and local governments delay projects in the hope of receiving Federal funds.’”

“Without Federal investment in infrastructure, particularly in our nation’s highway network and transit systems, the ability to move freight across the country and the free movement of people between States with vastly differing abilities to fund infrastructure would be compromised. The Committee is also concerned that the Administration does not realize that State and local governments, through the statewide transportation improvement program planning process, already determine the “right level–and type–of infrastructure investment needed for their communities.” More troubling is the fact that the budget request assumes that after fiscal year 2020, highway trust fund outlays will be at levels that are supported with existing tax receipts, resulting in an outlay reduction of $95,000,000,000 over fiscal years 2021-2027. The Administration’s approach is dangerously close to support for devolution of Federal funding provided by the Highway Trust Fund, an idea the Committee strongly opposes.”

Overall, the bill protects funding for the programs that T4America believes are crucial to our transportation system like TIGER and the Capital Investment Grant Program. This bill is a great step to ensure that key infrastructure and transit programs will be funded accordingly, and will continue to serve the nations most vulnerable persons.

T4America and LA CoMotion partner for a week-long discussion on urban mobility challenges and solutions

Transportation for America is delighted to partner with LA CoMotion, a unique five-day event bringing together the global leaders of the urban mobility revolution this November. 

The first edition of LA CoMotion takes place in Downtown Los Angeles’ vibrant Arts District from November 15th through 19th, 2017. The immersive event features cutting-edge discussions, demos, test drives and exhibitions – an exciting glimpse into our urban future. 

John Rossant, Founder and Chief Curator of LA CoMotion said:

“The urban mobility revolution is set to transform every city in the world. Robust urban transport is indispensable to making cities more inclusive, connected, healthy and vibrant. LA CoMotion is pleased to partner with Transportation for America, an alliance of community leaders working to build stronger economies through better transportation networks. We look forward to working with T4America to deploy mobility solutions for all communities, large and small.”

LA CoMotion will also dovetail with the next meeting of our Smart Cities Collaborative, which we’ll be hosting in Downtown Los Angeles, November 14th and 15th. 

This meeting will close out the first year of our Collaborative. As they have throughout the past year, participant cities will collaborate to develop policies and projects enabling them to test and pilot automated vehicles, shared mobility and other emerging technologies. Additionally, cities will explore innovative procurement and contracting models, how best to partner with private mobility and data providers, and will work together to create state level policy frameworks in preparation for the upcoming 2018 legislative sessions across the country.

We’re looking forward to our partnership with LA CoMotion and to an inspiring week of dynamic conversations around the future of smart mobility this November. 

Friends and members of Transportation for America can request a special discount code for LA CoMotion here.

National brain trust gathers to strategize around arts, culture and transportation

Last month, a group of twenty four transportation officials, engineers, planners, artists, policymakers, and advocates from around the country gathered together in Indianapolis to sweat and scheme about how to use arts and culture to build support for more equitable transportation infrastructure.

Twenty-four leaders, ArtPlace America and T4America gathered in Indy for a rare opportunity to talk transportation and creative placemaking.

Transportation for America (a program of Smart Growth America) and ArtPlace America co-hosted this working group, which was graciously hosted by Big Car Collaborative and the Harrison Center for the Arts, two of many incredible organizations working at the intersection of arts, culture, and community development in Indy.

We chose Indianapolis partly because Indy voters approved a 0.25 percent income tax hike back in November 2016 to drastically improve bus service. The new tax will raise more than $54 million annually for the construction of three bus rapid transit lines, new buses, increased route frequency and new sidewalks and bus shelters. But the devil is in the details, and Indy-based transportation, community development and arts organizations and individuals are keen on ensuring that these new investments serve existing residents by centering community input through arts and culture. Local organizations like Transit Drives Indy, LISC, House Poem, Big Car, IndyGo, and others have invested in creative placemaking practices to tackle the role of transportation in improving access and quality of life for everyone in the Indianapolis region. (T4A will also be working closely with Transit Drives Indy over the coming year as part of the Cultural Corridor Consortium.)

Geoff Anderson, President of Smart Growth America, welcomes the working group.

During our time in Indianapolis, the working group visited a few sites including a complete streets project at Maple Crossing, part of Great Places 2020, and Big Car’s Artist & Public Life Residency, an artists’ housing and community land trust development. We also heard from leaders of creative placemaking projects around the country; working group participants Amanda Newman, Joseph Kunkel, Alan Nakagawa, and Peter Svarzbein shared stories from their roles as the creative instigators behind incredible arts-driven transportation projects in Takoma Park, MD, Kewa Pueblo, NM, Los Angeles, CA, and El Paso, TX, respectively.

We ended our time together by breaking into four groups — federal, state and regional, local municipal, and local advocacy — to brainstorm specific ideas and initiatives to further support the adoption of arts and cultural strategies as crucial to solving challenges within the transportation sector.

A storefront in the Maple Crossing corridor where Harrison Center for the Arts is fostering arts programming that engages the local community.

Several themes emerged as the working group participants reflected on our team’s ongoing research:

The need to define “community engagement”

Considering how arts and culture can help transportation agencies better engage communities is just one, narrow aspect of how creative work can help produce better transit infrastructure. There are also varying degrees and definitions of community engagement. While to some it may conjure images of an inaccessible public sector official sitting behind a desk while community members yell at them, others see community engagement as a more significant power shift where transit planning is led by residents themselves. Many working group members agreed that approaching transportation planning through arts and culture helps us go beyond the cursory or surface-level community engagement that is all too common.

Leading with equity and inclusion

The inclusion of arts and cultural strategies doesn’t automatically lead to transportation projects that serve everyone fairly or reflect the diversity of all stakeholders. Equity must be part of the DNA of any project. One participant identified the need to be clear about what ethnic and socioeconomic communities a project is intended to serve and what kinds of cultural heritage the arts and transit project would lift up: If the neighborhood is predominantly African American, yet the arts presented are culturally European, what message does this send regarding the project’s audience? Another participant suggested that because some communities have experienced a history of disinvestment — notably communities of color, immigrant communities, and lower- or mixed-income communities — an equitable approach to transportation investment will actually require disproportionate investment to level the playing field.

Making a stronger argument for how arts and culture impact key transportation priorities: safety, congestion, schedule, and cost

The transportation field operates with these four core considerations, and participants noted that we must effectively demonstrate how arts and culture impact these concerns to be taken seriously. Others felt that the inclusion of arts and cultural approaches should and could actually help shift which considerations are important and what transportation professionals actually evaluate as success, moving away from impersonal quantitative metrics to a more holistic picture that includes the quality of experience. Yet, other participants prioritized the importance of continuing to identify the key traditional transportation stakeholders who need to understand and advocate for the impact of creative placemaking, and create tools that can empower these allies.

Changing arts and culture from being a “nice to have” to a “need to have”

Many in this field have been working for decades to build beautiful public art at transit stops and on bus and train lines. However, our group noted that an area for growth is the opportunity to impress upon transportation leaders that apart from this more visible form of the arts, arts and culture can play a vital role in the actual transportation planning processes, implementation, policymaking, and more.

Making better use of a variety of forms of expertise, including lived experience, technical knowledge, and political power in our planning, design, and maintenance of transit infrastructure

We spent a lot of time discussing the different barriers to better integrating cultural approaches to transportation. For example, engineers may not feel comfortable with or be encouraged to communicate transparently with residents, and residents may feel unmotivated to share their experiences after past histories of being negatively impacted or disrupted by new transportation projects. Participants discussed how to overcome these kinds of barriers, articulating that this kind of synergy is required to get us to better community outcomes and that arts and culture can help lead the way.

Stay tuned for the release this fall of our Arts, Culture and Transportation Field Scan — an examination of creative placemaking in practice across the country by T4A’s Arts and Culture team, commissioned by ArtPlace America — which includes deeper exploration of the ideas discussed above. Sign up for our newsletter here to receive ongoing updates.

This post was written by Mallory Nezam for T4America and Danya Sherman from ArtPlace America.

Working group participants:

  • Geoff Anderson, Smart Growth America
  • Chris Appleton, Wonderroot
  • Emiko Atherton, National Complete Streets Coalition
  • Scott Bogren, Community Transportation Association of America
  • Rochelle Carpenter, Nashville Metropolitan Planning Organization
  • Stephanie Gidigbi, Natural Resources Defense Council
  • Tedd Grain, Local Initiatives Support Corporation Indianapolis
  • Neil Greenberg, Detroit Department of Transportation
  • Susie Hagie, Colorado Department of Transportation
  • Sabina Haque, Artist
  • Scott Hercik, Appalachian Regional Commission
  • Joseph Kunkel, Sustainable Native Communities Collaborative
  • Joung Lee, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
  • Dana Lucero, Oregon Metro
  • Alan Nakagawa, Los Angeles Department of Transportation
  • Amanda Newman, Health for America, Artist
  • Peter Svarzbein, Artist
  • Anthony Taylor, Major Taylor Bicycling Club of Minnesota
  • Shin-Pei Tsay, Gehl Institute
  • Sarita Turner, PolicyLink & Transportation Equity Caucus
  • Jim Walker, Big Car
  • Patricia Walsh, Americans for the Arts
  • Orson Watson, Consultant
  • Sara Zimmerman, Safe Routes to School

About Transportation for America’s Arts & Culture Initiative

In 2016, T4A began its arts and culture initiative with the launch of The Scenic Route, an interactive creative placemaking resource for transportation professionals. More recently, T4A launched the Cultural Corridor Consortium, a grant making and technical assistance program that supports communities to use arts and culture to solve local transportation challenges. T4A is currently producing a field scan in collaboration with ArtPlace America examining the impact of arts and culture on transportation projects. T4A is a leader in the national creative placemaking movement, which seeks to support and institutionalize the role of artists in contributing to community development projects, especially in advancing smart and equitable transportation solutions.

About ArtPlace America’s Research Strategies

ArtPlace Research Strategies seek to understand both the processes undertaken and the outcomes achieved by creative placemaking practice.  By looking deeply into the activities and learnings surfaced in both the National Creative Placemaking Fund and Community Development Investments program, we bring the arts and cultural work happening in communities of all sizes and contexts together with an analysis of key trends and measures of success in community development practice. Rather than attempting to develop a single approach or system for evaluating creative placemaking project impacts – which vary widely depending on local context, stated goals, and partners – ArtPlace research products are intended more broadly to support practitioners and organizations interested in taking up creative placemaking work. Our partnership with Transportation for America is part of a broader research initiative that we refer to as the Translating Outcomes initiative.

New Massachusetts academy will focus on performance measures

Following the success of last year’s academy sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, the Barr Foundation is sponsoring a new Transportation Leadership Academy for regional planning agencies in Massachusetts focused on using performance measures to better assess the impacts and benefits of transportation investments. 

Beginning this October, leaders from regional planning agencies in Massachusetts — along with civic and business leaders from across the state — will participate in a new training academy focused on performance measures. Performance measurement is the practice of more carefully measuring and quantifying the multiple benefits of transportation spending decisions to ensure that every dollar is aligned with the public’s goals and brings the greatest return possible for residents.

This academy will educate teams made up of local business, civic, elected leaders, and transportation professionals, prepare them to act on opportunities within their regions, and plug them into a dynamic national network of leaders throughout the country.

We are still recruiting leaders from Massachusetts to apply and join the yearlong academy.

Learn more & apply

 

The academy will consist of in-person workshops, ongoing technical assistance throughout the year, regular online training sessions, and expert analysis of their plans and progress on deploying performance measures. During the academy participants will:

  • Develop performance measures that fit and match their agency’s size and capabilities.
  • Discover how performance measures can be applied at different stages of the planning, project development, or construction process.
  • Explores how RPAs promote future-ready transportation, and interact with federal and state agencies and transit operators to define their critical role in shaping local transportation decisions.
  • Design metrics for community goals that address topics such as health, access, and equity.
  • Improve their public engagement process and how to talk to skeptics about performance measures.
  • Discover ways in which social equity and access to opportunity can be incorporated into their work.
  • Focus on green house gas emissions and the environment.

The Massachusetts Transportation Leadership Academy is presented by Transportation for America, Transportation for Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies, with support from the Barr Foundation.

To apply, please complete this brief form.

Learn about asset recycling, a financing approach for infrastructure

With the current administration’s intense focus on public-private partnerships and ways to bring more private sector dollars into building transportation infrastructure, join us on August 16th for a discussion of a specific form of public-private partnership (P3) known as asset recycling. 

Asset recycling is the practice of selling or leasing existing, publicly-owned infrastructure and using the proceeds to pay for building or maintaining other infrastructure. While we like to point out that financing is not a replacement for direct federal or state investment infrastructure, it’s clear that the current administration and Congress are both eager to encourage more private dollars to flow into infrastructure investment and financing somehow.

Join us for this short webinar at 2 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, August 16th where we’ll discuss the strengths, weaknesses and potential pitfalls of this approach for transportation through three case studies from Australia, Virginia, and Chicago. We’ll consider some key questions, like whether this approach is realistic for rural communities and the ways it may or may not generate revenue as compared to more conventional public private partnerships.

REGISTER HERE

For T4America’s members, we’ve produced a short memo explaining this topic in more detail, which you can find below if you are logged in.

[member_content]

Click to read: Asset Recycling – an Alternative Approach to P3s

[/member_content]

Asset Recycling – an Alternative Approach to P3s

This memo provides background on asset recycling, including its strengths, weaknesses and potential pitfalls. To learn more join us on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2pm EDT for a discussion on asset recycling. Register here.

What Is Asset Recycling?

Asset recycling is selling or leasing public assets and using proceeds to pay for other infrastructure. This type of public private partnership (P3) is different from other P3s, which typically engage the private sector in building and operating new infrastructure. Asset recycling instead involves two pieces of infrastructure, the asset being sold or leased to the private sector, and a second piece of infrastructure – unrelated to the first – built with the proceeds of that sale or lease. The name “asset recycling” comes from the idea that the value of the old asset is recycled to pay for the new asset.

The new infrastructure being funded by asset recycling may not be a revenue generator – whereas most other P3 approaches would require the new infrastructure to be revenue generating. The asset being sold or leased must generate revenue to be of value to private sector purchaser.

What Asset Recycling Isn’t

Asset recycling does not recycle the asset itself, only the value of that asset. Unless unused excess public property is being sold off, the fundamental underlying principle of asset recycling is that a public entity privatizes a public asset to gain access to capital in the short term at the expense of longer-term revenue. This process creates a one-time funding infusion, generally at the expense of longer-term revenue. This is not a source of long-term funding and would be better described as a form of financing, not funding.

Case Studies

Australia’s Asset Recycling Initiative

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull launched a 2-year Asset Recycling Initiative in 2014 offering $5 billion in federal funds to incentivize privatization of infrastructure like ports, power stations and transmission lines. As long as the state or territory invested the sale or lease proceeds in infrastructure, the federal government provided a 15 percent match. The program addressed state and territory-owned infrastructure, not municipal infrastructure. The Australian Senate conducted an inquiry into the process and found major risks to this approach. The report found that the program distorted the market through incentivizing the sale of assets that would not have been sold without the Australian government’s subsidy. Also, the Senate found that linking asset sales to new infrastructure investments could in fact have a negative fiscal impact by selling income-generating assets to fund infrastructure that does not generate any income. In the end, the report recommended, “the link between privatization and infrastructure funding under the Asset Recycling Initiative should be removed.” P.M. Turnbull ended the Asset Recycling Initiative in May 2016, redirecting remaining funds to other infrastructure programs.

Virginia’s I-66 Outside the Beltway

Virginia Department of Transportation entered into a P3 with Express Mobility Partners to build express lanes on a segment of I-66 outside the beltway. In one sense, this was a traditional P3 in which the private sector entity builds the express lanes and collects the tolls. However, VDOT negotiated a deal which requires Express Mobility Partners – in exchange for the rights to this project – to pay $500 million upfront for improvements to the corridor. The State also required the concessionaire to pay $800 million for transit service and $350 million for other improvements to the corridor over the next 50 years. These additional resources secured from the private entity can be viewed as recycling the value of the expressway asset into additional infrastructure and services, and they were made possible because of the McAuliffe administration’s investment in P3 expertise and development of reforms to Virginia’s approach to P3s after some past failures.

Chicago’s Parking Meter Deal

In 2008 Chicago mayor Richard Daley leased the city’s parking meters to Chicago Parking Meters LLC for 75 years in exchange for $1.16 billion. The private entity increased meter rates, added metering in areas that had not yet had it, and charged the city for lost revenue whenever parking spaces were unavailable – for example, during repaving. The deal also prevented the city from opening new off-street lots that could compete with the on-street metered spaces. In addition, rather than reinvesting the funding in new infrastructure, the city used it to fill budget holes. By 2010, only $180 million of the original sum was left.

Concerns And limitations

There are many elements to privatizing a public asset that impact whether that asset can serve its function effectively, such as determining:

  • whether the agreement requires the asset to be properly maintained before being passed back to the public ownership at the end of the lease;
  • how much local control to surrender;
  • the price the public pays for the service change;
  • whether the asset will be managed in a way that is consistent with public goals.

Without expertise in P3 agreements, governments risk negotiating problematic deals for themselves. P3 offices established in Virginia and District of Columbia have helped them to cultivate expertise to support P3 agreements.

Unlike other P3 arrangements, asset recycling couples two separate decisions – selling or leasing a publicly owned asset, and investing in new infrastructure. Each of these has its risks, but when they are combined in a single action with the federal government incenting the deal, the risks multiply. As with other P3s, asset recycling are better viewed as a form of financing rather than a source of long term funding. Selling or leasing a revenue-generating public asset means a government loses ongoing revenue in exchange for a one-time payment.

One concern with evaluating P3s and asset recycling is that both public and private debt should be considered in order to leverage financing. Optionality is key to a good deal. By comparing the private sector funding source against public or municipal debt, communities will be able to negotiate the best deal for taxpayers.

Limitations in Rural Communities

Asset recycling is of limited utility for smaller jurisdictions, who are less likely to own public infrastructure that can be effectively privatized. Aside from some toll roads, most revenue generating infrastructure assets – such as airports, parking garages, ports, or transit systems – are in dense urban areas, not rural or mid-size communities. The assets that small communities do have may not generate significant enough funding to address local infrastructure needs.

Smaller jurisdictions also have more limited resources to invest in P3 expertise. For example, moving forward on projects that involve the private sector without having capacity to calculate the net present value (the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows) can open communities to unwanted risk.

An analysis published by APM Reports in May shows that of 520 projects submitted to the Trump Administration for possible inclusion in an infrastructure package, 46 projects have sponsors considering private financing and of those only 2 projects are located in rural communities.[1] This analysis clearly shows that private investment primarily focuses in larger population centers.

Some have suggested that using asset recycling to finance project in urban areas would make more resources available for rural areas, or that states might consider urban assets to fund rural infrastructure needs. However, if the income from the asset being sold had previously gone to the urban area, this could be a highly controversial diversion of funds from one portion of the state to another. Existing funding sources already raise a disproportionate amount of funding from metropolitan regions, but do not meet the full needs in rural communities.

[1] http://wuwm.com/post/trumps-desire-private-infrastructure-money-will-narrow-his-choices-mostly-urban-projects#stream/0

The House takes its first crack at automated vehicle legislation

As self-driving technology advances toward becoming an everyday fixture in our lives, Congress is beginning to consider regulations to govern how they’ll be tested, how they’ll operate and how to ensure they’ll be safe for everyone. But are they taking the right approach?

Uber’s self-driving pilot program in Pittsburgh. Flickr photo by zombieite.

The House Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection last week produced what they hope becomes the first federal law on automated vehicle testing and regulation, combining 14 bills that were introduced after a hearing in late June into one bill.

Legislators have been under tremendous pressure from the private sector (like automakers, for example), who say that legislation is necessary to increase safety, avoid a patchwork of state regulations and streamline, not stifle, innovation. While cities are generally both supportive and convinced of the long-term benefits that self-driving technologies could offer, many cities are also concerned by this rush to legislate without their input, potentially losing the ability to regulate their own roads, the lack of data provided by the private sector, the short-term threat to safety, and a lack of focus on long-term impacts to equity, the environment, congestion, land-use and a host of other critical issues.

What’s in the bill?

Among other things, the draft bill contained provisions that would:

  • Pre-empt cities and states from regulating the “design, construction, mechanical systems, hardware and software systems, or communications systems” of highly automated vehicles.
  • Allow automakers to self-certify the safety of both the vehicle and its software without an independent reviewer.
  • Increase the number of NHTSA exemptions to test automated vehicles on public roads from 2,500 to 100,000 vehicles per manufacturer.
  • Create an advisory council that would be devoid of any representation from cities, MPOs or states to study and advise on the effects of this technology.
  • Allow manufacturers and operators to keep secret “…situational information related to any testing or deployment event.”

What are our concerns?

While the bill addressed some of the most critical issues, much of the language lacked specificity and failed to consider the needs of local communities or the long-term impacts of this technology.

Members of our Smart Cities Collaborative were concerned. So last week, we partnered with the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), National League of Cities (NLC), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other organizations to oppose the legislation as it was introduced.

We traveled to Capitol Hill to share our concerns directly with members of the committee and offer alternative language and amendments. Here are some of the specific changes we were seeking:

  • Clarify pre-emption language in order to guarantee that local communities will retain control of their streets.
  • Reduce the number of possible exemptions from 100,000 to a figure that cities and states can safely manage on their streets. We suggested 5,000 was a reasonable increase.
  • Require that the advisory council contain representatives from local governments (including states, MPOs and urban and rural communities) to participate in the conversation alongside the private sector.
  • Establish a third-party repository of data that’s accessible to cities, states, academics and safety advocates on the operational and safety performance of any automated vehicle granted a safety exemption for testing.

After a week of meetings and outreach from cities, states and other organizations, the committee released a substitute amendment last week that compromised on or addressed many of these concerns, improving the bill from the original version. This substituted version (H.R. 3388) was unanimously approved by the the Energy and Commerce Committee last Thursday and is headed to the House floor.

While legislators did improve the bill, much more needs to be done to ensure that the testing and deployment of automated vehicles are not just safe, but helps to drive cities and states towards the long-term outcomes they’re striving for.

What’s next?

As this bill continues to evolve in the House and as the Senate develops and releases its own bill (maybe as soon as this week), it will be important to continue pushing for changes to ensure that local governments can manage their roads effectively and provide the data and information to do so, and to guarantee that cities are proactively guiding the national conversation around the deployment of automated vehicles:

  • Ensure that data is shared and publicly available. The legislation increases the number of vehicles that can be tested on our streets, but fails to offer local governments (or anyone) access to data on their operation or performance. This is critical to assess vehicle safety as well as understand the policy and planning decisions necessary for full deployment.
  • Require a seat at the table for the public sector. State and local officials are permitted to be on the advisory councils, but that’s not enough. They need to be guaranteed representation. Congress cannot let the private sector drive this discussion on their own.
  • Stronger definitions and language. Much of the bill’s language is vague, open to multiple interpretations and has loopholes. For example, current language prevents a manufacturer from selling an automated vehicle, but does not address whether the company could use all 25,000-100,000 of their exempted vehicles in a commercially based “testing scenario,” such as how Waymo or Uber have operating in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Given the scale of the exemptions, these loopholes need to be clarified immediately.

We’ll continue tracking this legislation and this issue overall as it progresses, so stay tuned.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of July 28th

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 Senate Appropriations full committee approved the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development “THUD” bill last week. The bill maintains the TIGER program which President Trump and the House Appropriations Committee proposed to eliminate. (Bloomberg BNA, T4America)
  • Last week, the House Energy and Commerce passed comprehensive legislation related to automated vehicles (AV’s). The legislation creates a federal-state framework for regulation of AV’s, that pre-empts state regulation in certain areas and increases the amount of safety exemptions to 100,000 over three years that manufacturers can obtain in order to test AV’s. (Recode)
  • The House of Representatives has delayed consideration of their FY 18 budget resolution until September (The House is in recess in August. Republicans have still not reached an internal caucus agreement on non-defense spending levels. (The Hill)
  • S. DOT’s “Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on Monday that would allow public transit projects to streamline some steps in the regulatory or permit approval process if they prove that it will attract more private investors.” (The Hill)
  • The Trump Administration’s first proposed effort on privatizing infrastructure, spinning off the air-traffic control system to a non-profit corporation, is struggling to find support in Congress. (The Hill)
  • Our partners on the Federal Highways Administration system performance measures rule, the National Resources Defense Council and U.S. Public Research Interest Group, are suing the Trump Administration over their delay on the greenhouse gas measuring requirement. (NRDC)
  • Biking is becoming mainstream in New York City. (NY Times)