News and Blog - Page 39 of 78 - Transportation For America

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of March 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 is eyeing a plan that would require states to begin infrastructure projects within 90 days of receiving federal funding”. (The Hill, Wall Street Journal)
The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster (Republican-Pennsylvania) “reiterated Thursday his commitment to moving President Trump’s infrastructure proposal through Congress this year”. (The Hill)
Our Senior Policy Advisor, Beth Osborne, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday and wrote an op-ed about her testimony. (The Hill)
The Senate passed a bill unanimously to repeal FHWA’s recent final rule on MPO Coordination and Planning. (ENO Transportation)
The American Society of Civil Engineers released their annual infrastructure report card and gave the U.S.’s infrastructure an overall grade of D+. (ASCE)
After Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin, Texas, new forms of ride-sharing are popping up in Austin. (MIT Technology Review)
“Colorado Lawmakers Reach Agreement for Tax Hike, $3.5 Billion Bond in Transportation Deal.”(Denver Post)

On the road with creative placemaking

When it comes to planning or development, more communities are thinking outside the box. Local leaders are interested in developing community projects that better reflect their local culture, heritage, and values, and creative placemaking is an approach that can help them accomplish those goals.

Creative placemaking is an approach that incorporates arts, culture, and creativity into the planning process to allow for more genuine public engagement — particularly in low-income neighborhoods, communities of color and among immigrant populations.

Transportation for America has been ramping up efforts over the last three years to help people across the country incorporate arts and culture into their community development projects, focusing first on transportation projects.

In 2016 we released The Scenic Route: Getting Started with Creative Placemaking and Transportation, an interactive guide for transportation planners, public works agencies, and local elected officials who are on the front lines of advancing transportation projects. I came on board at Transportation for America and Smart Growth America in 2016, and soon after we launched a webinar series covering the role artists and designers can play in improving the visioning process, along with the ways city agencies are benefiting artist-in-residence programs. More recently, we welcomed our new arts & culture associate, Mallory Nezam, who brings her background in cultural organizing, digital marketing, and theater to our creative placemaking initiative.

We’re doing a lot more than producing valuable resources at this point, though, and we’re expanding our work to helping diverse communities across the country learn how this approach can reap tangible benefits.

In December 2016, a team of us from Smart Growth America traveled to Zanesville, OH to deliver a technical assistance workshop. I was there to explain how creative placemaking and leveraging the town’s burgeoning artist community could help attract new businesses and residents to the disinvested downtown, boosting the economy in a way that would also honor and elevate the city’s history and culture.

Zanesville was once a thriving economic center for manufacturing and logistics, but has undergone the loss of nearly half of its residents since the 1950’s. The community has been working to bring investment back to its downtown by transforming its burgeoning arts scene into an established community and tourist attraction. I shared with Zanesville’s leaders an array of creative placemaking strategies to build on the town’s artistic energy, including artist attraction programs, renovation loans, façade grants, layered tax incentives, small business and artist support programs, and festivals and events to employ artists and build social cohesion. Workshop attendees came away with lessons from successful case studies of similarly sized communities such as Paducah, KY and Cumberland, MD.

I also presented Open Walls Baltimore, an international street art project I developed in Baltimore’s Station North Arts District, as an example of how connecting local artists with invited foreign artists can accelerate local artists’ careers, bring positive press to a neighborhood, and inspire civic participation first in the mural project, then in future community meetings and projects. Open Walls leveraged Station North’s street artists to put the district on the map; the same could certainly happen in Zanesville.

Our experience in Zanesville is really just the tip of the iceberg — T4America and SGA are ramping up this work and rounding out the technical assistance that we’re able to offer to local communities.

In just the last few months, we’ve been with the citizens of Williamson, WV, and Portsmouth, OH, and I’m looking forward to trips to Carrizozo, NM, Youngstown, OH and Twin Falls, ID, the latter two of which are communities using small-scale manufacturing and place-based development to create economic opportunity. I’m looking forward to sharing more about their experiences.

Creative placemaking is just one of the ways we work with towns and cities to improve communities. Contact us to learn more about our creative placemaking work and how we might be able to help your community.

Do our federal transportation priorities match the rhetoric we use to justify more spending?

With the Trump administration readying both an annual budget and discussing a possible large infrastructure package, Transportation for America yesterday urged a key Senate subcommittee to protect the investments in programs that promote innovation, encourage collaboration and maximize benefits for local communities.

Photo via WSDOT/Flickr httpswww.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/8670279118

The President’s first budget will almost certainly propose big cuts to discretionary spending programs. While the bulk of annual federal transportation spending is sourced from the highway trust fund and should be more insulated from these cuts, discretionary cuts would fall disproportionately on funding for new transit construction (New and Small Starts) and multimodal and local priority projects (TIGER).

House and Senate appropriators will have two decisions to make: a) whether to appropriate the amounts prescribed by the current long-term transportation law (the FAST Act) for the core programs, which is uncertain as well, and, b) how much to allocate for these other discretionary transportation programs.

As expected, with the heads of a few national trade groups also testifying yesterday alongside T4America before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, there was the usual rhetoric about America’s “crumbling” infrastructure amidst calls to invest more money overall in the federal transportation program.

And while T4America agrees on the need for greater levels of overall investment, T4A senior policy advisor Beth Osborne (pictured above) differentiated our overall position.

“As everyone testifying today will say,” she noted in her opening remarks, “we have great need to invest in our transportation system, including our roads, bridges, and transit systems. However, Transportation for America also believes that our problems run far deeper than just an overall lack of funding.”

When we have these discussions about the need to invest in infrastructure — especially in Washington — all sorts of ominous numbers are thrown around. Tens of thousands of deficient bridges. Pavement condition that’s worsening by the day. Backlogs of neglected maintenance and repair.

But where does the money go once we increase transportation spending and dole it all out to the states? Beth Osborne explained:

In fact, while we talk about the need for more funding to address our crumbling infrastructure, that is not necessarily where the funding goes. A 2014 report conducted by Smart Growth America called “Repair Priorities” found that between 2009 and 2011 states collectively spent $20.4 billion annually to build new roadways and add lanes. During that same time, states spent just $16.5 billion annually repairing and preserving the existing system, even while roads across the country were deteriorating. As we talk about large infrastructure packages, it’s only fair to ask that the priorities of our transportation program more closely match the rhetoric we use to justify more spending on it.

Why do we keep spending hefty sums on new roads and new lanes while repair backlogs get ignored? One reason is that transportation and development decisions are rarely well coordinated and we end up trying to address bad land use decisions with more transportation spending, and vice versa.

Launching a new leadership training academy on transportation for civic leaders in the state of Ohio

We’re launching another leadership academy program, this time aimed at training and equipping civic leaders across the state of Ohio to spearhead a fresh approach to transportation that will foster sustainable economic growth and boost the economy in metro areas and the state.

The Healthline in Cleveland is one of the best bus rapid transit lines in the country, yet there’s little planning happening to replicate it elsewhere in the city or other cities in the state.

In cooperation with the Greater Ohio Policy Center, T4America is launching a new leadership academy program to help civic leaders across the state understand the importance of transportation and train these leaders to make change in their cities and regions, and we’re looking for applicants.

Ohio could benefit from a fresh approach to transportation. In a state where many of its cities struggle with either slow or negative population growth, the last generation’s economic development strategies are no longer delivering results.

Repair needs are mounting but municipal budgets struggle to keep up as the tax base decentralizes or population shrinks. While many in Ohio’s cities recognize the importance of public transportation, the state budget offers a pittance to transit service, pushing the full burden onto strained local budgets.

New job centers — especially for low-skill and high-opportunity jobs in logistics and manufacturing — are growing in suburban or exurban locations. Job growth is a boost to those locations, but these jobs are inaccessible to workers who don’t have a car or other reliable transportation. Employers lose out on part of the employer pool and even struggle to fill open positions at these sites.

A fresh approach to transportation can go a long way in addressing these challenges Ohio’s cities face, and it’ll be Ohioans who lead the way.

This Ohio academy program will show local leaders the best practices and emerging ideas that have been successfully employed in peer cities across the country. It will train participants to be effective champions for change in their cities and help a new generation of local leaders understand how transportation decisions and choices affect the quality of life and prosperity in their regions. We will show how expanding access to jobs and restoring walkable communities will be the keys to economic success in Ohio’s cities.

Each workshop will feature real-life lessons from other regions of the country and hands-on activities and exercises to understand critical concepts like low-cost, high impact changes such as rerouting and realigning transit service to better match travel patterns and provide better service to more riders, partnerships with employers to extend the reach of transit service and expand access to jobs, and how to make transit a central part of community and neighborhood development, to name just a few.

The academy will bring community leaders from across the state together for a yearlong series of six, one-day workshops. The program will strengthen connections between peers across the state, foster the leadership skills of a new cohort of transportation advocates, and reinforce the impactful work already under way in Ohio’s major metros.

The academy is aimed at local elected, business, and civic leaders. The program is best matched for individuals who do not work day-to-day in transportation, but have close ties to transportation or related fields, such as real estate, economic development, or workforce development. The program is open to individuals from across Ohio.

To request more information and an application, please complete this brief form.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of March 3rd

Stories You May Have Missed

President Trump in a speech to Congress on Tuesday called on Congress to approve a $1 trillion dollar infrastructure package but offered few additional details about his plan. (Huffington Post)
The Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster (Republican-Pennsylvania) told reporters on Wednesday that “President Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure package won’t be entirely funded with public money and could include projects that are already in the works but have been stalled by the slow federal permitting process”. (The Hill)
In a Senate Commerce and Transportation Committee hearing on Wednesday on transportation needs in rural states, South Dakota Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard said that public private partnerships (P3’s) don’t work in rural states and federal investment is needed. (Kelo: Sioux Falls South Dakota Radio Station)
Governor Jerry Brown of California asked Secretary Elaine Chao of U.S. DOT to reverse her decision withholding a $647 million grant to Caltrans to electrify Caltrans tracks between San Jose and San Francisco. Secretary Chao withheld the money after all 14 California Congressional Republicans wrote Chao to request that the money be withheld until an audit was done of California’s high speed rail project. (LA Times)
The Indianapolis City Council approved the first ever income tax for public transportation that voters gave the thumbs up to in a referendum on the ballot during the November 2016 election. (Indy Star)
The City of Philadelphia has made tremendous progress toward raising the $225 million necessary for a transformative project to cap I-95 on the Philadelphia waterfront with a public park. The project only needs $35 million more in funding after The City and Pennsylvania DOT committed $90 million and $100 million respectively. (Plan Philly)
An LA Times investigation has found that Southern California civic officials have approved the building of homes near freeways even though California air quality officials warned against doing so because of severe health risks. (LA Times)
Austin Texas is in the process of overhauling their zoning code and may cut parking minimums by 50 percent. (Streetsblog USA)

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of February 24th

Stories You May Have Missed

Consideration of any proposed infrastructure plan from President Trump may be pushed off to 2018 (Axios)
White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Thursday to expect to hear more from the president on his infrastructure agenda during his speech to Congress next week (Politico Morning Transportation)
The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) says that commuter rail transportation authorities are making progress in installing positive train control (PTC) on their systems. (RT&S)
Wondering how self-driving trucks could affect employment? Self-driving trucks could have a significant effect on jobs in certain parts of the country (Axios)
The New York Times does a deep dive into Uber’s work culture. (NY Times)
Op-Ed: Joe Cortright says we should not demonize driving, just stop subsidizing it. (City Lab)

Part 2: Options for all: Serving the elderly and disabled with shared-use mobility

Transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft and bike-share providers like Zagster improve options and expand accessibility. Can they support the needs of vulnerable populations and smaller markets? Transportation for America attended the Shared Use Mobility Summit to learn more. (This is the second post of a two-part series. Read Part 1 here.)

In our last post, we discussed some of the innovations that transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft are pioneering, and how niche solutions are popping up to serve an increasingly diverse base of customers.

While added choice is generally good news for the consumer, these programs do raise new issues for government agencies.

“There are underlying differences in the traditional service vs. new TNCs,” says Jana Lynott, senior policy advisor for AARP’s Public Policy Institute. “For one, TNCs do not do fingerprint background checks. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) compliance office has also raised concerns that they do not do drug and alcohol testing. And the FTA has even questioned whether it’s legal per federal rules for federally funded transit agencies to sign these types of contracts.” Additionally, despite their concerns, FTA is also trying to figure out their role and the impacts these projects can have on communities. Earlier this year, through their Mobility on Demand Sandbox grant, they awarded $8 million to transit agencies across the country to test some of these innovative projects.

Data concerns

Another challenge for public agencies is that TNCs typically don’t share their ridership data, which would have immense value for local leaders, policymakers and planners.

For large cities trying to forecast trips, lack of data from TNCs hinder their ability to forecast ridership and plan accurately. “We can’t model what we don’t know,” says David Leininger, Executive Vice President of Dallas Area Rapid Transit. “Supposing all these innovations work, how does it affect our traditional methods of analysis? We don’t know the market share of these trips,” he says. That makes it harder to plan around them. Across the summit, many participants expressed a desire for public agencies to access TNC trip data.

PC: Trillium Transit

Data challenges are just as pronounced with rural and paratransit services. Major transit providers use a common standard for public transit timetables: the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). Using GTFS data, apps and extensions is how services like Google Maps can make it easy to map, plan, and track trips across a wide range of providers and transit services. There is no such common language for paratransit.

“We’ve created a system where human service agencies have to buy proprietary software packages that don’t talk to each other well,” says Lynott. Now, a group has formed for software developers, transportation professionals, and other interest parties to work together and develop and propose common data specifications. And the Transportation Research Board is currently studying an open-data specification for transit providers, Lynott reports.

Equity issues

Data is only the tip of the iceberg for skeptics of TNCs. There are legitimate and growing concerns about how they are subverting existing markets and their ability to truly meet the needs of vulnerable populations. Many advocates and industry veterans are about the suitability of TNCs in this space.

PC: Gamaliel

“The idea of having on-demand services provide paratransit is unacceptable,” says Carol Tyson, transportation equity advocate.

Tyson reports that to discuss concerns over a request for proposals that the District of Columbia put out for TNCs to provide paratransit service. The assembled group demanded widespread wheelchair access, enough training for drivers to work with people with disabilities, performance measures to gauge wait times and fares, and protections against cuts to bus lines. Most of all, they want a seat at the table. “The people who rely on these services are often missing from the discussion,” says Tyson.

Also often missing in these discussions are the drivers and their perspectives. Advocates demand living wages, paid sick leave and fair hiring policies. Their anxieties are likely to grow as TNCs embrace a future of automated vehicles that would remove the driver entirely along with their associated costs. That would end hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Economic concerns have led Zipcar founder Robin Chase to champion an unconventional policy: a universal living wage.

Watch a video that Robin Chase shared at the Summit about the future of autonomous vehicles: https://youtu.be/DeUE4kHRpE

Bike-share considerations

As TNCs look toward smaller markets, bike-share providers have followed suit. “People often think about systems in New York City, Washington D.C., or Chicago, but it’s actually thriving in a lot of places,” says Nate Taber, head of marketing for the Zagster bike-share company. Zagster operates 142 systems in North America. The company works around the challenges of smaller marketplaces — including lower density and tax bases — by developing service-based purchasing, locating near parks and major destinations, centralizing its operations, and working with community partners to attract sponsorships.

Coalitions of community groups and businesses are key to success in these markets, and they take part for good reason. “We have seen communities use bike-sharing as more than a new mode of transportation, but as an amenity and a way to be more competitive,” says Taber. “Cities use it as a lever to draw in new businesses.”

PC: Zagster

But bike-share systems, too, pose hurdles for elderly and disabled populations. For one, most standard bike-share bikes are heavy. Providers are working to develop new, lighter-weight models, but they are built heavy for a reason; it reduces theft and can withstand lots of wear and tear. Zagster also offers a line of accessible bikes. These include hand-cycles for people with disabilities, and tandems that allow people who travel with a guardian the ability to use the program. One small pilot program recently launched in Rome, New York, includes a three-wheeled bike with two seats for this purpose.

Making bike-share accessible is especially important as more communities realize its public health benefits. Recognizing that higher active transportation levels lead to reduced rates of chronic disease, local health insurance companies often co-sponsor bike-share systems. In some places like Corvallis, OR, Medicare will reimburse recipients the cost to use the system. In our forthcoming policy paper on Healthy MPOs, we outline how leaders in Corvallis took several steps to make bike-share convenient for people in need, such as incorporating easier-to-ride tricycles, locating stations near Medicare recipients’ homes, and allowing users to check out a bicycle via text message.

Looking ahead together

More communities are partnering with shared use mobility providers. The market is expanding to meet diverse geographies, age groups, and ability levels. The private sector is powering ahead, promising new options, service improvements, and cost savings. These options raise questions about equity, access and data. And the public sector must strike a balance.

We can learn from other leaders.

In Boston, MA the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority worked directly with disability advocates on a program to incorporate TNCs. In Detroit, MI the Department of Public Health piloted a program to provide transportation for individuals with HIV/AIDS. In Portland, OR, the nonprofit Ride Connection taps a robust volunteer network to serve people with limited options. And Marin County, CA has implemented over a dozen strategies to improve mobility, led by a diverse set of stakeholders.

Cities will need to take the reins to ensure these monumental shifts in transportation doesn’t shape their cities without their input and produce a new generation of transportation haves and have-nots. And with so many new questions looming over the impacts these projects will have, working together to solve these challenges will be crucial.

These are just some of the challenges that T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative is beginning to work on. Cities are partnering together to explore the positive and negative impacts of these new transportation models, develop appropriate policies, and test on the ground solutions because change is coming….Fast.

How are metro areas prioritizing health and building more biking and walking projects?

Though there’s booming demand all across the country to build more projects that can help residents get out and bike or walk — whether for exercise or just for getting around safely from A to B — it can be an uphill battle to do so. How are metro areas upending the conventional wisdom and building more projects that help improve their residents’ health?

How we get around each day shapes our quality of life, especially our health. People who walk or bicycle more for transportation are shown to have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and other conditions that can complicate or shorten lives. And the demand for more opportunities to safely walk and bicycle is at an all-time high in cities and towns of all sizes across the country.

Communities are responding by planning, funding, and fast-tracking projects to make bicycling, walking, and riding transit safer, more convenient, and more realistic as travel options.

Click to download this new paper

But getting these projects planned, designed and built can be a challenge. How can regions bring more of these projects to fruition?

This new paper, produced with the American Public Health Association, outlines four policy levers MPOs have at their disposal to help increase and improve active transportation projects to meet the demand, decrease health disparities, increase access to opportunities, and strengthen local economies — with specific short real-life stories to go with each.

For the launch of the paper, we had an online discussion with a number of the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) featured in this paper to hear how they’re successfully prioritizing bicycling and walking projects.

We spent some time exploring the specific policies these MPOs have adopted, and how they’ve implemented them. Catch up with the recording below.

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of February 17th

Stories You May Have Missed

Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune (Republican, South Dakota) and Michigan Senator Gary Peters (Democrat, Michigan) are planning to introduce legislation directing the National Highway Transit Safety Administration (NHTSA) to make vehicle safety standards more flexible for autonomous vehicles. (The Hill)
The surface transportation program and the inability of Congress to fund it makes the Government Accountability’s Office (GAO) “High Risk” list again for 2017. (Politico); (GAO, page 98)
Amtrak President Wick Moorman pushes for additional direct federal money to Amtrak in any infrastructure package. (Bloomberg)
The Federal Transit Administration is withholding money from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) after Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C failed to establish a state safety oversight program. (Progressive Railroading)
In response to FTA withholding the money from WMATA, Virginia, Maryland and DC’s Congressional delegation introduced legislation to give Congressional consent to the state safety oversight program as required by FTA in order for WMATA to obtain the withheld money. (Washington Post)
San Francisco officials push bill in California that would legalize automatic speed enforcement cameras. (Streetsblog)

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of February 10th

Stories You May Have Missed

President Trump lamented the lack of high-speed rail service in the U.S. during a meeting he had with top airline executives on Thursday. (The Hill)
In anticipation of a major infrastructure initiative promised by President Trump, the National Governors Association forwarded a list of 428 “shovel-ready” projects to the new administration, representing projects from 49 U.S. states and territories. (Washington Post)
Tensions rise between Pittsburgh and Uber as Uber refuses Pittsburgh’s requests. (Quartz)
The Rocky Mountain Institute releases a road map on how private car ownership could decline as soon as 2020. (Curbed)
As jobs grow in downtown Seattle, workers are turning more to transit. (Seattle Times)
Kansas City has just shared the first compilation of data from its “Smart City” pilot project with other cities, as well as with federal agencies. (TechCrunch)

New technical assistance opportunity for MPOs interested in performance measures

Today T4America is launching a new technical assistance program to help metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) go further with measuring and quantifying the multiple benefits of transportation spending decisions to help ensure that every dollar is aligned with the public’s goals and brings the greatest return possible for citizens.

Similar to the Transportation Leadership Academy we did in partnership with FHWA last year, this new technical assistance program is geared toward helping a handful of metro areas implement a data-driven approach to assessing the costs and benefits of transportation spending — a process known as performance measurement.

MAP-21, the federal surface transportation law passed in 2012, created new requirements for metro regions to start using performance measures that are largely focused on the highway network on conventional things like safety, condition of roads & bridges, etc. (Though the included measures for traffic congestion, as we’ve shown, have a huge impact on how we choose to “solve” that particular problem.)

USDOT finalized the requirements for all of the new measures on January 18, 2017 and will require all 400-plus MPOs and 50 state departments of transportation (DOTs) to develop transportation performance measure frameworks.

Our team has designed a suite of tools to help MPOs not only satisfy the modest new federal requirements, but also go beyond them into other areas such as public health, access to opportunity, social equity; and to help them translate their big picture targets and goals into specific criteria for choosing and prioritizing what transportation projects to build and where.

Find out more and apply today.

Apply Here

New national survey on performance measures

Some metro areas have already been going far beyond the federal government’s modest new requirements to assess their transportation investments in terms of more ambitious goals like return on investment, public health and access to jobs. To establish a clear state of the practice and answer some key questions, T4America conducted this national survey of 104 MPOs from 42 states in 2016, also being released today.

New national survey examines how metro areas use performance measures to evaluate their spending

Thanks to action taken by Congress, metro areas will be required to use a data-driven process to measure the performance of their transportation spending. But some metro areas already go far beyond the modest new federal requirements. T4America’s new national survey of over 100 metro planning agencies examines the current state of the practice — and where it’s headed.

The federal transportation law enacted in 2012, MAP-21, ushered in a new era by requiring metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to start evaluating the performance of their transportation investments against a handful of federally required measures. (We’ve written about this just a bit over the last few years.)

View and download the full survey results here.

Some metro areas have been doing this for years, going far beyond the federal government’s modest new requirements (such as safety or condition of roads & bridges) to assess their transportation investments in terms of more ambitious goals like return on investment, public health and access to jobs. With the new suite of measures finalized by USDOT in early 2017, it’s no longer an option for MPOs now — it’s a requirement.

To find the answers to some of these key questions and establish a state of the practice, T4America conducted a national survey of 104 MPOs from 42 states in 2016. Our survey tried to assess:

How many MPOs are already using performance measures in some form?
How many are interested in going beyond the new modest federal measures?
What’s keeping them from doing more?
What other key goals and metrics are they interested in measuring?

Among a range of interesting findings, we discovered that the majority of the MPOs surveyed (75 percent) are already using performance measures in some fashion. However, there is significant room for improvement in how they use them — only 30 percent of all MPOs utilize performance measures to evaluate specific projects for inclusion in the fiscally constrained five-year plans that govern all short-term spending.

While most MPOs are focused on meeting the new federal requirements, two-thirds of all agencies surveyed also want to become national leaders in using performance measures — including many MPOs currently doing only the minimum or just getting started. When it comes to additional measures outside of MAP-21’s modest new requirements, nearly half of MPOs surveyed chose equity and/or health as one of the five additional goals they are interested in measuring and assessing.

View the full survey results here.

Apply for technical assistance from T4America

In addition to the survey, T4America is today announcing a new technical assistance program specifically designed to help MPOs successfully respond to federal, state and local requirements. Find out more about applying, including info on an upcoming webinar to explain more about the application process.

Learn more & apply

In Memoriam: David G. Burwell, 1947-2017

David Burwell with his wife Irene, left, and mother Barbara. Photo via the Rails to Trails Conservancy, which David founded.

The transportation reform community lost one of its most passionate and thoughtful voices earlier this month with the passing of David Burwell. This loss has affected many of us deeply at Transportation for America given David’s early role in our founding and his remarkable lifelong work advancing revolutionary ideas and building institutions that are dedicated to sustainable transportation solutions.

I count myself among the many fortunate individuals who got to work for David, as his employee while he served as President of the Surface Transportation Policy Project in the early 2000s.

It was an early book published by the then-lawyer Burwell in 1977, The End of the Road: A Citizen’s Guide to Transportation Problem-Solving, that first got me hooked on transportation policy. Unlike most transportation and urban planning texts I had read when I was fresh out of college in the early 1990s, David told the human story of what the interstate construction program meant for real people, real neighborhoods and race relations in urban America in the 1960s. It was a story that inspired me to do more in the transportation field, and one that so eloquently articulated the perils of leaving the public out of critical infrastructure decisions.

If you weren’t lucky enough to know David as well as I did, you are nevertheless indebted to him in countless ways.

As the founder and CEO of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, he built a fearless organization that has literally reconnected America with over 22,000 miles of trails built along the beautiful spines of old railroad corridors, corridors that would otherwise have been abandoned and lost forever.

As President of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, he helped build a remarkably diverse coalition that for the first time knitted together local elected officials, public health professionals, civil rights organizations and business leaders who helped win progressive reforms and significant funding for multimodal transportation projects in Congress.

And most recently during his tenure at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace he advanced some of the most creative and thoughtful policy ideas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower our dependence on oil and increase revenue for “greener” federal transportation projects. And he did it all, throughout the two decades I was lucky enough to know him, with charm, grace, passion and poise — and a knowing twinkle in his eye whether he was debating friend or foe.

David’s insight, energy and leadership will truly be missed. It should serve as a guiding and inspiring light for all of us who are working tirelessly to build on his legacy.

This piece was written by James Corless, Director of Transportation for America. Our thoughts are with David Burwell’s family as they mourn his passing. – Ed.

How metro planning agencies are promoting physical activity and health

Join us for the release of a new paper showing how regional transportation planning agencies are promoting physical activity and health while improving mobility and access to opportunity.

Register for the launch of Measuring what we value: Policies to prioritize public health and build prosperous regions on February 21st at 12:00 p.m EDT.

And communities are responding by planning, funding, and fast-tracking projects to make bicycling, walking, and riding transit safer, more convenient, and more realistic as travel options.

But getting these projects planned, designed and built can be a challenge. How can regions bring more of these projects to fruition? How can they integrate them into the processes of choosing what to build? How can they upend perhaps decades of radically different priorities to make these types of projects the norm?

This new paper, produced by T4America and the American Public Health Association, outlines four policy levers MPOs have at their disposal to help increase and improve active transportation projects to meet the demand, decrease health disparities, increase access to opportunities, and strengthen local economies — with specific short real-life stories to go with each. On this launch webinar, we’ll be joined by staff from a number of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to hear how they’re successfully prioritizing bicycling and walking projects. We’ll explore the specific policies these MPOs have adopted, and how they’ve implemented them.

Register today and we’ll also send you a short four-page preview of the full paper to be released on February 21st, a doc summarizing the specific strategies that MPOs are using to make more of these projects a reality.

Already joining us on February 21? Spread the word!

(Note: We profiled four of these MPOs at length in this package of related short case studies, released late in 2016.)

Stories You May Have Missed-Week of January 30th

Stories You May Have Missed

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday January 31^st voted to confirm Elaine Chao to be the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. (CNN)
On Wednesday, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held its first hearing of the new Congress to host a broad discussion on the need to invest in infrastructure. (T4A member summary here)
New York City instituted a requirement that ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft have to report detailed data about where they’re picking up and dropping off their passengers. (Wired Magazine)
Tennessee Governor Bill Haslem’s plan to raise the gas tax in Tennessee to fund transportation needs faces skepticism in the Tennessee state legislature. (Chattanooga Times Free Press)
Transportation for America/Smart Growth America released a new report, “Empty Spaces” highlighting that too much parking is being built near transit stations. (Transportation for America; Washington Post)
Nearly $6.8 billion dollars in development has occurred around Minneapolis’s current and planned light rail lines. (Minneapolis Metro Council)
The Congress for a New Urbanism released their 2017 list of “Freeways without Futures”. (CNU)

Recapping our discussion about states making transportation a key driver of their economic development agendas [video]

States are changing how they select transportation projects in order to save money and boost economic development. Catch up on our webinar explaining how states are attempting to focus state funds on more cost-effective investments in transportation.

We’d like to offer a hearty thanks to our two featured speakers, Kate Fichter, Assistant Secretary for Policy Coordination for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Charles Knutson, Executive Policy Advisor for Transportation and Economic Development to Washington Governor Jay Inslee.

Kate and Charles shared how each of their states have reformed how transportation projects are selected and built to ensure every state investment delivers the greatest bang for the buck and to reduce to overall cost of megaprojects. In the Q&A in the second half of the program, we talked about balancing local and state priorities, balancing needs across different regions of diverse states, as well as how each state is preparing for new automated vehicle technology.

Catch up with the full recording above.

Briefing book for governors

This webinar follows our recent guidebook for governors and their administrations explaining how a fresh approach to transportation is fundamental to creating quality jobs and shared prosperity while running an efficient government that gets the greatest benefit from every taxpayer dollar.

Download it today.

State policy network

State legislatures around the country are beginning new sessions as we speak, and this means a renewed focus on raising new state funding for transportation and also reforming the policies for spending those dollars. As legislators take a hard look at transportation programs, the policies and strategies in this new guidebook above — and in our previous resources — show how states can save money, improve projects, and make a stronger case to transportation spending through smart policy reforms. These resources are part of our State Transportation Advocacy, Research, & Training network. We provide policy information and connect a diverse group of state policy makers and advocates through this network.

House T&I Committee Hearing: “Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America”

Link to hearing page: here.

On February 1st the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee held its first hearing of the new Congress to host a broad discussion on the need to invest in infrastructure.

The hearing panelists were:

Fred Smith, Chairman, President, and CEO of the FedEx Corporation
David MacLennan, Chairman and CEO of Cargill, Inc.
Ludwig Willisch, President and CEO of BMW of North America
Mary Andringa, Chair of the Board of the Vermeer Corporation
Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO

Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) called the hearing to discuss the need for investment in infrastructure. Rep. Shuster began the hearing by noting two new additions to the committee room: quotations from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and from the U.S. Constitution which emphasize infrastructure development as an important function of the federal government.

In contrast to Rep. Shuster’s general endorsement of infrastructure spending, Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-OR) came out with several specific financing proposals, including increasing and indexing fuel taxes, reassigning fees collected at ports to fund harbor maintenance, and raising the cap on passenger facility fees used to finance airport improvements.

The panelists all strongly supported, in principle, additional investment in this area and the business leaders each spoke of how predictable travel on highways, waterways and through ports and airports was critical to their businesses.

Comments from the panel

FedEx Chairman Fred Smith noted, and frequently repeated through the hearing, that his company and nearly all others in the transportation sector support an increase in user fees to support additional spending on infrastructure. He specifically endorsed an increase in motor fuel taxes as well as new congestion charges assessed through EZ-pass-type electronic tolling. Smith repeatedly referred to a list of twenty Interstate highway projects that were designed and ready to build if funding were available and said these projects would reduce congestion and help his business.

Cargill CEO David MacLennan urged the committee to focus not just on the new technology and “shiny objects,” but to continue to maintain existing infrastructure, noting how important highways, freight rail and, especially, inland waterways are to the agriculture industry.

BMW America CEO Ludwig Willisch noted the intermodal global supply chains that the company’s U.S. manufacturing depends on and also that well-maintained infrastructure would help automated vehicle development.

Vermeer Chair Mary Andringa thanked the committee for new projects funded by the FASTLANE grant program.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka urged the committee to include existing worker protections and seek the lowest cost of capital in any transportation financing arrangement, including public-private partnerships. He also noted that private financing would be unlikely to cover needs in rural areas. He argued a big investment – on the order of $1 trillion – would be needed to repair the existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure to replace that which is becoming technologically obsolete.

Summary of questions and comments from members

In his opening remarks, Rep. DeFazio stated that he hoped Congress would bring back some earmarking for critical projects, stating that representatives best know the needs and priorities of their districts. Rep. DeFazio separately noted a provision he worked to include in the FAST Act that would allow new funding made available to flow out directly though existing formula programs. Further, Rep. DeFazio encouraged the committee to focus on repair of existing infrastructure, noting that President Trump has made the same appeal to “fix-it-first.”

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) noted that spending on infrastructure is the best economic stimulus and said of new revenue, “The American people ok paying it as long as they know every penny is used to the best that it could.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) lamented that we are now letting fall into disrepair what earlier generations had the courage to build and asked about possible alternative funding sources to replace or supplement the fuel tax.

Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) asked if BMW would consider using the automated vehicle testing facility in Ohio.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) expressed concerns that increasing automation in manufacturing logistics, and construction sectors would displace workers and said that while many expect new infrastructure spending would create many new jobs, that may not be the case. FedEx’s Smith noted support for a new law in Tennessee to provide worker training and skills development.

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) asked if the federal government should get involved directly in toll roads or congestion pricing and if the committee should be considering truck-only tollways. FedEx’s Smith responded that such lanes would be a possibility but are not necessary.

Rep. Rick Larsen (WA) asked about the potential of NextGen air traffic control and asked Richard Trumka how labor is supporting workforce development in the transportation industry.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) addressed Ranking Member DeFazio’s proposals, saying that he supported a user fee funding source for transportation, but thought it would be difficult to raise such fees as long as funds were, in his words, “leaking out” to bike paths and beautification projects.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) noted the need to invest in transit and the importance of moving people as well as freight. He noted that the committee had already considered P3 financing and found that only approximately 10% of projects could be appropriate for such financing.

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) asked whether BMW would make the same decision as it had 20 years ago to move to South Carolina given current infrastructure. BMW’s Willisch said it would and noted that the company had just invested another $1 billion in their operations there

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) asked about electrifying vehicle fleets, specifically at FedEx.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) expressed surprised agreement with AFL-CIO’s Trumka on the importance in investing in new, transformative technologies.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) expressed frustration that the committee continued to discuss the importance of infrastructure investment but that the majority had not offered a concrete plan for funding infrastructure. She asked Trumka is repatriation of profits or P3s would be a solution; he responded that they would not.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) noted that families are already paying for infrastructure through fuel taxes and the cost of products delivered. He asked what the committee could do to help the panelists’ companies without new funding. Only Cargill’s MacLennan answered, noting existing funding already available.

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) stated that her priority was creating jobs and asked what investments would best support poverty reduction.

Rep. Jason Lewis (R-MN) noted that residents in his suburban district are reliant on cars. He asked whether congestion pricing could peak congestion and noted that opponents say there is no way to build out of congestion. FedEx’s Smith said congestion pricing would work, as slow-downs are created at the margin so moving a few trips would have an effect. However he also argued that building new highways and adding capacity was the only way to eliminate congestion.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) hoped for a user fee for transportation to be exempted from the no taxes pledge.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), who previously served in the Pennsylvania State Senate, noted how the industry-led public education effort built the support necessary to pass new transportation funding at the state level in 2013 [see more on that effort here]. He asked panelists what they are doing to build that public support now at the federal level.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) announced he would introduce legislation to close loopholes in the Buy America provisions and require that Buy America waivers be published in the Federal Register. He also asked the panelists what the federal government could do to support the development of automated vehicles.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) asked panelists how private companies or P3s could better construct infrastructure. He offered an example from his district where businesses are interested in financing an interchange to access their sites. He challenged Trumka on Davis-Bacon requirements.

Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) spoke of the importance of workforce development and asked about workforce training at a time of changing technology.

Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) asked for the panelists’ business advice on how to better prioritize projects, noting examples of four-lane highways with very few vehicles on them. He also asked whether water transport of freight could reduce highway congestion.

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-NJ) noted that investments in the Port of Newark, Newark Airport, and the Gateway Tunnel were important.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) asked whether panelists would support dedicating royalties collected on from mineral resources to fund transportation.

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) spoke of the importance of locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

Will Oregon’s DOT change how they do business?

Buttressed by public opinion, a new oversight effort and legislative action, momentum is building in Oregon for increasing transparency and accountability in how the state’s transportation agency does its business.

I-5 over the Columbia River in Oregon. Flickr photo by Doug Kerr. httpswww.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/7459949082

Governor Kate Brown and the Oregon legislature have been working for well over a year to restart efforts to raise new state revenues for transportation after a failed attempt in 2015. Two separate special committees have toured the state for listening sessions, and have developed or are in the process of developing proposals for a transportation investment package.

These efforts to raise new funding have put a spotlight on the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). A growing number of legislators, local leaders and members of the public are asking whether or not ODOT’s investment choices are maximizing return on investment, and whether those decisions are made with adequate accountability and transparency.

While the agency is respected for innovative programs like ConnectOregon’s competitive grants and a strong commitment to fix-it-first principles, it has stumbled occasionally as well, including the failure to win support for the problematic Columbia River Crossing mega-project, massive cost overruns on a rural highway project in the landslide-prone coastal mountains, and ill-timed miscalculation of carbon emissions estimates related to failed 2015 transportation investment legislation.

In late 2015 members of the legislature demanded, and the governor commissioned, an audit of ODOT to review the agency’s management structure and oversight.

Just this last week, the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), a body of five volunteers appointed by the governor to oversee ODOT, has jumped into the fray. OTC Chair Tammy Baney took the unusual step of sending a formal letter to Governor Brown requesting dedicated independent staff and participation in the agency director’s performance review — to help the OTC fulfill its oversight duties.

This latest move by the OTC coincides with similar efforts in the legislature.

Representative Jeff Reardon (D) has introduced a bill (HB 2532) directing the “Oregon Transportation Commission to adopt rules establishing quantitative system for scoring and ranking transportation projects that are being considered by commission for inclusion in Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.”

Transportation for America has assisted in developing this bill, which draws on programs in Virginia, Massachusetts, Washington State, and others. The legislative session starts this week, and the bill already enjoys support from five other legislators, including top Senate transportation committee Republican Brian Boquist.

With all these efforts to reform ODOT now in motion, this Thursday’s meeting of the new oversight group should be lively. OTC members and meeting attendees will learn about the draft findings from the ODOT audit for the first time — a topic that will almost certainly touch on the accountability and transparency of ODOT’s business decisions.

Introducing “Empty Spaces,” new research about parking requirements for transit-oriented developments

The oversupply of parking around transit — usually at the direction of outdated engineering guidelines — takes up valuable land, raises the cost of development, and misses key opportunities. This new research from Smart Growth America analyzes the amount of parking actually used in five transit-oriented development areas and how it compares to the guidelines that many planners, engineers or developers follow.

The land near transit stations is a valuable commodity. Hundreds or thousands of people travel to and through these places each day, and decisions about what to do with this land have implications for local economies, transit ridership, residents’ access to opportunity, and overall quality of life for everyone in a community.

Many communities choose to dedicate at least some of that land for parking. The question is, how much? Standard engineering guidelines are designed for mostly isolated suburban land uses—not walkable, urban places served by transit. But few alternative guidelines for engineers exist.

Empty Spaces: Real parking needs at five TODs, released today by Smart Growth America, set out to determine how much less parking is required at transit-oriented developments (TODs) and how many fewer vehicle trips are generated than standard industry estimates.

Professor Reid Ewing and his research team at the University of Utah College of Architecture + Planning selected five TODs across the country, each with a slightly different approach to development and parking: Englewood, CO; Wilshire/Vermont in Los Angeles, CA; Fruitvale Transit Village in Oakland, CA; Redmond, WA; and Rhode Island Row in Washington, DC. The research team counted the number of people entering and exiting the TOD buildings, and conducted brief intercept surveys of a sample of them. The team also counted parking inventory and occupancy.

The study found that all five TODs generated fewer vehicle trips than standard guidelines estimate, and used less parking than many regulations require for similar land uses. Most of the TODs included in this study also built less parking than recommended by engineering guides, yet even this reduced amount of parking was not used to capacity: the ratio of demand to actual supply was between 58 and 84 percent. Fewer vehicle trips is one likely reason why parking occupancy rates were lower than expected. Another possible reason is that standard engineering guidelines do not fully account for other travel modes that are available and actively encouraged at TODs.

This was crossposted from Smart Growth America

Join us for the kickoff webinar, today at 1 pm

If you’re reading this before 1 p.m. Eastern on 1/31, join us for a kickoff webinar. You are invited to join us:

Register for the event to to learn more about the findings and to hear from the report’s author, national policy experts, and planners from two of the cities included in this survey. Developers, regulators, and practitioners are already rethinking how much parking is needed at TOD. This new information can help them make better informed decisions, and ultimately create the development needed most at these in-demand locations.

NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING: Assessing performance on the NHS, freight movement on the interstate system, and the CMAQ program

DATE EFFECTIVE: FEBRUARY 17, 2017

[FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE, HERE]

Overview

Less than one year after the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) first proposed outdated measures of congestion (see T4America’s blog post here) and after thousands of our members and partners provided comments, FHWA is now finalizing this rule. Published on January 18, the final rule rolls back some of the redundant, vehicle-focused measures initially proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and incorporates some significant changes, many of which we advocated for.

In response to comments from T4A and others, the final rule adds two new measures – a carbon dioxide emissions measure and a multimodal measure. To better reflect the number of people traveling on the system, two of the other proposed measures were modified so they are based on person-travel instead of vehicle travel.

In addition, the faulty measures for percentage of the interstate freight mileage uncongested and Peak Hour Travel Time Reliability (PHTTR) included in the NPRM were both deleted from the final rule. The final rule also simplifies the required data processing and calculation of metrics.

While the final rule is much improved, changes to the speed thresholds for the congestion measure may have some negative impacts on signalized downtown roads with low speed limits.

Background

On the same day that FHWA released this final rule on system performance and congestion, FHWA also released its final rule establishing regulations to assess pavement and bridge conditions. (See T4America summary here). These final rules are the last of several regulations issued to implement the performance management framework established by the recent national transportation authorizations bills, known as MAP-21 and the FAST Act.

In addition to these two rules, FHWA published rules on safety performance measures and the integration of performance management into the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in March 2016 and published a rule on asset management plans in October 2016. In May 2016, both FHWA and FTA published a joint rule implementing changes to the planning process.

Together these rulemakings establish regulations for state DOTs and MPOs to evaluate and report on surface transportation performance across the nation.

Final measures

In the draft rule, 7 of the 8 proposed measures were based on vehicle travel time data. Now, only four of the final measures are derived from vehicle travel times, three of which are weighted to reflect all people traveling on the system.

The seven measures established in the final rule include:

Three measures of system performance
- Percentage of reliable person-miles traveled on the Interstate
- Percentage of reliable person-miles traveled on the non-Interstate NHS
- Percent change in CO2 emissions from 2017, generated by on-road mobile sources on the NHS
A measure for freight movement on the Interstate system
- Average truck travel time reliability index (TTTR)
Three measures to assess the CMAQ program, including two measures on traffic congestion
- Total emission reductions for applicable criteria pollutants, for non-attainment and maintenance areas
- Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita
- Percent of non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel, including travel avoided by telecommuting

Timeline and enforcement

State DOTs will establish their first statewide targets one year after the effective date of this rule, February 17, 2017. MPOs have up to 180 days after state DOTs establish their targets to establish their own targets.

State DOTs must establish both 2-year and 4-year targets. The MPOs are subject only to a 4-year target-setting requirement. MPOs must either: (a) agree to plan and program projects so that the projects contribute toward the accomplishment of the relevant state DOT target for the performance measure, or (b) commit to a quantifiable 4-year target for the performance measure for the MPA. FHWA will assess every 2 years to determine if a state DOT has made significant progress toward achieving their targets.

If States/MPOs fail to meet their targets after 4 years, they have to set new ones for the next 2- and 4-year performance period. If they fail again, there is no real consequence.

Under the new administration, the White House ordered a freeze on the regulatory process. For regulations that have been finished but have not taken effect, the order calls for temporarily postponing their effective date for 60 days or possibly longer. This order could delay the effective date of this rule.

System performance

In the NPRM, FHWA proposed calculating performance on the interstate and non-interstate system by using two metrics: (1) Level of travel time reliability (LOTTR), and (2) Peak hour travel time ratio (PHTTR).

T4America and others expressed concern about the PHTTR measure as a poor measure of performance because it assumes the goal is for roadways to operate in free flow conditions at all times of day – a prohibitively expensive and infeasible goal that can undermine local economic development and multimodal travel. There was already another congestion measure under the CMAQ program and a different reliability measure looking at how consistent travel was from one day to the next. Due to this, we recommended that this measure be vacated, which FHWA did in the final rule..

The final rule also changes the weighting of the travel time reliability measures from system miles to person-miles traveled using overall occupancy factors from national surveys. This prioritizes roadways that move more people through carpooling and transit over roads that only move SOVs.

New CO₂ emissions measure

The final rule adds a new emissions measure – percent change in tailpipe CO2 emissions on the NHS from calendar year 2017. This measure applies to the NHS in all states and metropolitan planning areas. All state DOTs and MPOs that have NHS mileage in their state geographic boundaries and MPAs will be required to establish targets and report on progress.

State DOTs will calculate the measure by multiplying motor fuel sales volumes by the FHWA-supplied emissions factors of CO2 per gallon of fuel and percentage VMT on the NHS.

Freight movement on the interstate

The draft rule proposed two measures of freight movement on the interstate: (1) Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR), and (2) percent of the interstate system mileage uncongested. T4A and our partners were concerned that the TTTR measure would prioritize freight movement over the movement of people. In response, FHWA removed the TTTR measure from the final rule.

FHWA also changed the form of this measure from one based on the percent of the system providing for reliable travel to an overall average truck reliability index for the Interstate. This change removes the hard threshold in the definition of reliable travel for trucks and recognizes incremental improvements that could be made to improve reliability.

CMAQ program

Three measures are established for the CMAQ program, including total emissions reduction measure and two traffic congestion measures.

Traffic congestion

The NPRM proposed measuring traffic congestion under the CMAQ program by looking at annual hours of excessive delay per capita. As mentioned above, a separate peak hour travel time reliability (PHTTR) measure was also proposed for measuring system performance on the interstate and non-interstate systems. The PHTTR measured percent of the interstate system in large urbanized areas over 1 million in population where peak hour travel times meet expectations. These two measures merge in the final rule creating the Peak Hour Excessive Delay (PHED) measure.

In response to comments, a new multimodal measure – percent of non-SOV travel – was also added in the final rule.

APPLICABILITY

Both the PHED and the multimodal measure adhere to the same applicability requirements. As proposed, the CMAQ congestion measure applied to areas in nonattainment with a population over 1 million. The final rule expands applicability to also include areas with a population over 200,000.

The applicability of both CMAQ traffic congestion measures will be phased in, beginning with urbanized areas with a population over 1 million that contain any part of nonattainment or maintenance areas for one or more air pollutants in the first performance period (2018). It will be expanded to urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 that contain any part of nonattainment or maintenance areas for one or more air pollutants beginning in the second performance period (2022).

The final rule also moves up the date of measure applicability determination to one year earlier than initially proposed. FHWA will determine measure applicability based on the most recent available data on October 1, 2017.

PHED – SPEED THRESHOLD

As proposed in the NPRM, the traffic congestion measure would have established a 35 mph threshold for freeways and a 15 mph threshold for other NHS roadways. In the final rule, FHWA responded to concerns about these static speed thresholds by setting the excessive delay threshold to 60 percent of posted speed limit, with a minimum limit of 20 mph. This may be a slight improvement for measuring excessive delay for expressways, but this same threshold will also apply to non-expressway facilities. Particularly when applied to signalize urban roads marked at 25mph, vehicle speeds might fall below 60% of the speed limit even during free-flow conditions.

In the final rule, FHWA encourages state DOTs and MPOs to share their strategies using volume limiting techniques to address concern when extremely slow speeds exist. FHWA plans to make provisions within HPMS to capture posted speed limit data by adding a field that can be populated for the full extent of the NHS.

PHED – PEOPLE-CENTRIC CHANGES

FHWA agreed with comments that the measure should represent the cumulative delay of all people using the NHS and not just the delay experienced by vehicles. As a result, the PHED measure requires the use of average vehicle occupancy (AVO) factors for cars, buses, and trucks and hourly traffic volumes to calculate person-hours of excessive delay. To support this approach, FHWA will establish AVO factors for applicable urbanized areas using the National Transit Database for buses and national surveys, such as the American Community Survey, for cars. State DOTs and MPOs have the flexibility of choosing to use these AVO factors or substituting more specific AVO data that they may have.

In response to comments, including comments from T4A, the final rule requires the use of annual population estimates using U.S. Census estimates (i.e. most recent ACS 5-year estimates) as opposed to the decennial census populations to normalize the excessive delay measure. The most recent annual population estimate will be used each time the PHED per capita measure is calculated.

PERCENT OF NON-SOV TRAVEL

This measure includes modes that are in the ACS Journey to Work data, which includes travel avoided by teleworking. State DOTs and MPOs have three options for calculating modal share:

use the ACS Journey to Work mode share data
use locally specific surveys, or
use volume counts for each mode.

FHWA encourages state DOTs and MPOs to report data not currently available in national sources, such as pedestrian or bicycle counts. For state DOTs and MPOs that chose to use count data, FHWA encourages this data to be voluntarily submitted to FHWA via national sources or databases (such as TMAS, NTD, or GTFS-RT).

On-road mobile source emissions

APPLICABILITY

While FHWA acknowledged T4A’s comments, FHWA did not agree that this emissions measure should apply more broadly to include all states or regions that receive CMAQ funds, or to consider all capital and operational opportunities to reduce emissions, not just those that receive CMAQ funding.

The measure is applicable to all states and MPOs with projects financed with funds from the CMAQ program, apportioned to state DOTs for areas designated as non-attainment or maintenance for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. FHWA clarified in the final rule that the baseline non-attainment and maintenance area designations should be based on area status as of October 1, 2017.

FHWA narrowed the definition of ‘maintenance area’ to exclude any areas that have completed their 20-year maintenance plan for an applicable pollutant. States and MPOs can also request exclusion from this requirement at the midpoint of the performance period, if their designation changes (i.e. the 20-year maintenance plan is achieved, or the area is no longer designated as non-attainment or maintenance).

While state DOTs and MPOs can still use CMAQ dollars to fund projects where is it not possible or easy to quantify the emissions benefit, these projects will not be accounted for in this performance measure.

METRIC & TARGET ADJUSTMENT

The final rule removes the conversion from kilograms per day emissions data to tons per year data. The final rule calculates total emission reduction as cumulative reductions in emissions over 2 and 4 federal fiscal years.

As in the proposed rule, the final rule allows states or MPOs that believe they would not be able to meet a target due to a change in models to adjust the target at the performance period’s mid-point or explain in their final performance report why they were unable to meet their targets due to model-based emissions estimate.

TIMELINE

Consistent with CMAQ Program Guidance, state DOTs must enter their CMAQ project information for the previous fiscal year into the CMAQ Public Access System by the March 1 deadline. In this rule, FHWA adds a new July 1 deadline, for when all information must be in the CMAQ Public Access System. This due date will apply on July 1 after the final rule is effective.

States and MPOs must use projects in the 4 years prior to the first performance year as a basis for establishing a target for the first performance period. The projects entered into the CMAQ Public Access System during the 2-year and 4-year performance period will be taken as is to calculate the measure.

Additional measures

FHWA notes that state DOTs and MPOs may voluntarily report additional measures beyond their baseline requirement. Additional measures, or variations, could include metrics for per capita emissions, VMT-based estimates, or other useful indicators. Some of the priority outcomes not addressed by the Congressionally mandated measures promulgated by this rule are jobs access, freight movement off the Interstate, public health, stormwater runoff, and household transportation cost.

Review & analysis

FHWA will review this rule after the first performance period to assess effectiveness of the requirements and identify any necessary changes. FHWA also plans to revisit the reliability and congestion measures after the completion of its multimodal research study in Fall 2018.

USDOT made significant improvements in this final rule. However, the ability to set negative targets (e.g., a target of more fatalities) remains an area of concern as does the lack of real accountability for failing to meet any of the self-set targets. This is a flaw in the underlying legislation and not anything FHWA could have addressed in the rulemaking.

Furthermore, the progress made under this rule could be rolled back, if the new Congress overturns this rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). At a minimum, the effective date of this rule may be delayed for 60 days. T4America continues to monitor this rule and will provide updates as necessary.