News and Blog - Page 57 of 78 - Transportation For America

Rhode Island’s first statewide ballot measure to support transit

Rhode Island’s first ever statewide transit ballot measure would issue $35 million in bonds to invest in the state’s transit infrastructure and improve bus service statewide, including new and reworked transit hubs to bring together different modes of travel.

The transit bonds (Question 6) are part of a larger $275 million package backed by Governor Chafee. The money would largely be invested in building and modernizing existing and new transit hubs — with a primary focus on building a statewide multi-modal transportation center adjacent to Providence Amtrak Station, the 15^th busiest station in Amtrak’s national network and the 3rd busiest station in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s commuter rail network. And it could serve as a source of local funds required to “match” most federal grant programs as well as for leveraging private investment, helping bring even more transportation investment into the state.

Credit: Jef Nickerson on Flicker

Currently, there are few direct connections from one transit system to another in Providence. Building the hub will eliminate an inconvenient walk outside in the elements to get from the bus to the train, making travel and connections much more convenient and efficient.

Local and statewide business officials have identified improving the state’s transportation and infrastructure system as a necessity for staying competitive in the future.

Michael Lewis, director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, told the Providence Journal, “In any urban area, in any city, any state in the country, your transportation systems are critical to the economic health and vitality of any region.”

Even though most work is focused in Providence, these connections will expand access at key points throughout the state, says Lewis, including a complete re-vamp of RIPTA, the state bus system.

Having local dollars to match federal funds is a requirement for most federal grant programs like TIGER, and it can also help bring in other investment.

“This bond issue is going to enable Rhode Island to bring money to the table to leverage federal and private dollars so we can create the kind of transit system that’s going to make Providence and Rhode Island competitive,” Lewis said in an interview with WPRI News.

The “Move RI Forward – Yes on 6” campaign is spearheaded by Grow Smart RI and includes 63 members including the local and statewide chambers of commerce, businesses, construction and real estate companies, environmental organizations and even the American Automobile Association Southern New England. Scott Wolf, the executive director of Grow Smart RI and spokesperson for the “Yes on 6” campaign, said, “We believe a stronger transit system will attract new businesses and talented workers to Rhode Island, while also creating badly needed construction jobs, reducing congestion, and improving our air quality and our overall environment.”

Supporters argue that to stay competitive with other midsized cities such as Indianapolis and Eugene, Oregon, the state must attract and retain high-growth companies and highly talented workers. Wolf says Providence isn’t able to do that without the “boost to our public transportation system that this bond would provide.”

In September Rhode Island was awarded a $650,000 TIGER Grant to begin designing the multi-modal transit center, helping lay the groundwork to make these future bond dollars go as far as possible.

While there has been no organized opposition to Question 6, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity is against the bond package as a whole, arguing the state can’t afford to take on more debt.

“We start programs, the feds fund it for a limited period of time, the federal funding goes away,” said Mike Stenhouse, a member of the R.I. Center for Freedom and Prosperity. “We’re stuck with maintaining or keeping up payments that were started.”

Rhode Island is just one in a series of states looking to voters to approve greater investments in their transportation system. For more information on important ballot measures being decided this November, make sure to check out our full Transportation Vote 2014 page.

To better serve the states and localities that are currently campaigning (or hope to campaign) for smart transportation investments, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver on November 13-14^th. There’s still time to register for this event.

If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

Texas looks to voters to ensure billions for highway funding

Facing a population and economic boom sufficient to give Texas seven out of the top 15 fastest growing cities, state legislators are looking to voters to direct more revenue to build more highways, but without raising new fees or taxes.

Credit: Lotus Carroll on Flickr

Texas has responded to the boom by building toll roads, wider highways, and some mass transit options in a few cities, but the state DOT and many state legislators feel that Texas isn’t building what they need to serve the 1,500 new residents moving there everyday — and they’re on the lookout for more money.

Texas currently has what they call a “rainy day” fund replenished with revenue generated from gas and oil drilling taxes and fees. The fund has been used in the past to help fill budget gaps and avoid budget cuts during economic slumps.

The legislature has placed a measure on this November’s ballot (Proposition 1) amending the state constitution to divert half of these funds for the next ten years to a State Highway Fund, to be used exclusively for highway construction, repair, and maintenance. This fund could not be used for toll roads.

Texas’ gas tax is currently set at 20 cents per gallon and was last raised in 1991. The coalition urging its passage says that Proposition 1 will raise an estimated $1.7 billion within the first year.

Both Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott and his Democratic opponent Wendy Davis are supporting the measure while campaigning for office. Organized support comes from Move Texas Forward, Texas Future, Transportation Advocates of Texas, and a broad range of trade associations, chambers of commerce, and other advocacy groups across the state.

Directing a portion of money generated by the very thing driving Texas’ economic boom right now (oil and gas) into the transportation network seems rational. However, it would be even smarter to leave those dollars flexible enough to address pressing needs in the transportation network wherever they arise, not just on the highway system. With several large and growing metropolitan areas, the state is going to need to invest in trains, bus lines, freight projects, passenger rail to connect cities, and local street networks as well.

The Houston Chronicle describes opposition to the proposal as “token and largely unorganized.” President of the Houston Property Rights Association, Barry Klein, hoped for a defeat so it “would force transportation official to confront their spending demands, possibly leaving the state better off when it comes to prioritizing projects.”

For more on important ballot measures to watch this Nov. 4, visit our Transportation Vote 2014 page.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest wisely in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s election. If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

After spurning it for decades, suburban Atlanta county seems poised to join regional transit system

In many states local jurisdictions have to get permission from their state legislature to raise local funds for transportation. One of the most notable examples of this will be taking place in a county in the heart of metro Atlanta, Georgia.

Click for more stories and information about a few key issues that will be decided on November 4

From the day when Clayton County, one of metro Atlanta’s core five counties, had to cancel their bus transit service outright in 2010, local leaders have been trying to figure out how to bring back transit service back and better connect their residents with jobs and opportunities.

In a county with a large population of low-wage workers, residents and employers alike are hungry for an affordable and reliable way to get around and get to work. C-Tran, the former county-run bus service, provided more than 2 million rides each year, helping residents get to jobs — especially the thousands of jobs in or near bustling Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in the north end of the county.

Read a short story of how shutting down the system affected one Clayton resident. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Click to open

It was a huge blow to the residents of Clayton County when county commissioners shut the service down in 2010 in the face of a recession-fueled budget crisis. Federal start-up funds and support from the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority had kept the service going since the early 2000s, but with that funding drying up the county faced a deficit that was too much to overcome.

Clayton County voters will decide a one-percent sales tax on Nov. 4 that will bring them into the MARTA system and bring bus service into the county. Flickr photo by James Williamor.

On Nov. 4, Clayton County voters will decide on a measure to increase the local sales tax by a percent to join MARTA, the regional transit system. Doing so would restore bus service and jumpstart planning for bus rapid transit or a rail extension in the years to come. As county commissioners debated whether or not to put the question on the ballot, they heard hefty support from residents, who turned out to meetings to urge commissioners to make a vote happen. And most of the commissioners saw the need. From a piece by Next City, published just yesterday:

At a packed board of commissioners meeting on July 1st, former State Rep. Roberta Abdul Salaam described what this looked like for formerly bus-dependent residents.

“I have people, students, young men that can’t take jobs for the summer because we don’t have transportation for them,” she said. “And someone said earlier don’t make it emotional — well let me just apologize now. I get emotional when I see little old women walking down Tara Boulevard in the ditch in the rain, and there’s not even anywhere to pull over and pick her up.”

Yet voters in Clayton County, or anywhere else, can only have this opportunity if the state they live in has authorized local communities to raise revenues through ballot measures.

“Enabling” legislation

State enabling laws must be in place before local ballot measures can even be considered — they either have to be on the books already, or passed ahead of a specific measure (as happened in Clayton’s case). These laws can govern many aspects of local ballot measures, including the type and duration of the levy, the process for getting a measure on the ballot, the permissible uses for the revenue, and sometimes even the exact language that must be presented to the voters.

A handful of bills were passed recently enabling local governments to raise local revenues for transportation in MN, PA, IN, NV, and CA and bills were considered in AL, MD, MI, SC, SD, UT, VA and WA during the 2013-2014 sessions. We recently covered a notable example in Indiana, where a law was passed just this year allowing Indianapolis to finally raise local funding to invest in their ambitious regional IndyConnect plan.

To make this vote possible for Clayton County, the Georgia General Assembly had to pass a pair of laws to “enable” Clayton to take the measure to the ballot, and they did so in 2013, with some specific restrictions.

Interestingly, state law already provided for Clayton to be a part of MARTA, and as one of the five core counties included in the 1970’s charter actually had a vote on the MARTA board. But Clayton and two other counties declined to pass the sales tax, and only the City of Atlanta, Dekalb and Fulton counties ponied up. In the meantime, Clayton had used it’s available sales tax percentage — state law caps it — for other purposes. That meant that the state had to waive that cap specifically for Clayton so they could decide on the MARTA tax. (A second piece of legislation was required to restructure the MARTA board to give Clayton County two representatives on the board starting next year.)

The legislation specified that the vote be restricted to raising revenue to join MARTA, rather than contracting for service as in the past, and the county had to take action this year.

Read this short primer on enabling legislation from our “Measuring Up” package of resources geared around state transportation funding.

Measuring Up

All state enabling laws are not created equal. A great counter-example is the one provided by the same Georgia assembly just a few years earlier. After no fewer than three tries before the state legislature, the state finally gave all Georgia metropolitan regions the power to pass regional transportation sales taxes. But that also came with a mandated two-year political process to develop a project list that swelled to 157 highway and transit projects for Atlanta in the end.

That 2012 referendum to raise $7.2 billion to invest in regional transportation needs failed in metro Atlanta for a lot of reasons, but as we opined at the time, the way the enabling law was written by the legislature may have contributed to its demise.

“Many voters also complained of a sense that the project list was a goodie bag for various political interests and not a cohesive plan to address well-articulated needs. The Legislature-mandated process almost assured that outcome. It called for creating a 21-member “regional roundtable” made up of a mayor and county commissioner from each of the region’s ten counties, plus the mayor of Atlanta. While the “pro” campaign pitched the project list as a solution to congestion, the list struck many voters as a collection of pet local projects that did not necessarily add up to a thought-through plan.”

In the end, there was a lot of “include my project on the list and we’ll support yours” horse-trading amongst the representatives developing the project list that might have doomed the measure.

Clayton’s prospects on November 4

But Clayton voters face a simple question on November 4: raise local sales taxes by a percent to join MARTA, create new robust bus service into the county starting in March 2015, and save half of the revenues (locked away in escrow) for planning or building some higher capacity transit in the years to come. And one thing we know from experience with ballot measures is that the simpler the question and the more clear it is what the money is going to buy, the more likely voters are to support it.

It’s also worth looking back at how Clayton County voted on that aforementioned regional transportation tax from 2012 — one that did include restored local bus service for Clayton, but which wasn’t expected to begin service for at least two to four years after the vote. It also included a handful of road improvement projects and initial development of a long-awaited commuter rail line south toward Macon that would run through the county.

If you look at that graphic, where Clayton is highlighted near the bottom, the bulk of the county’s precincts supported it between a 42-66% clip, with a handful of precincts at numbers below that. On top of that, more than 7o percent of voters approved the concept of participation in a regional transit system in a nonbinding referendum on the ballot just a couple of years ago.

The local experts we talked to were all cautiously optimistic that it’s going to pass, and many local political analysts are suggesting that it could possibly win by a pretty significant margin. Of course, turnout will play a big role in what happens, as always. We’ll be watching closely on election night and reporting back here, so stay tuned.

Want to know more about enabling legislation? Need help doing what Clayton County had to do and getting your state to clear the way for a local revenue-raising measure? Join us in Denver in just a few weeks on Nov. 13-14 for Capital Ideas — the premier conference for state legislation related to new transportation revenue.

Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Facing the uncertainty of stable federal transportation funding and often unwilling to raise their own taxes to fund transportation, some states have seized upon the idea of protecting their transportation revenues for transportation uses. On Nov. 4, Maryland and Wisconsin voters will be deciding on similar measures that would put transportation funds into protected accounts that can’t be appropriated for non-transportation uses.

Unlike the protected federal trust fund for transportation, the revenues gathered from the systems’ users in many states (gas taxes, fees and other sources) can be appropriated for other non-transportation needs. In Maryland, more than $1.3 billion intended for transportation has been appropriated to other items in the budget over the last few years, according to Greater Greater Washington’s detailed look at the measure.

Currently, the various transportation taxes in Maryland go into a state trust fund for improving safety, reducing congestion, and improving mass transit, air travel, and port facilities — but those funds can be easily moved by legislators each year to fill other gaps in the budget.

Maryland’s Question 1 would require the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency and get a three-fifths vote from both houses of the General Assembly before any funds could be taken out of the transportation trust fund.

Supporters of Question 1 argue that by placing revenues in a “lockbox” it will ensure stable funding for long-term projects, improve accountability, and help restore the confidence of voters and those paying into the system. After all, if Maryland wanted to increase their gas tax some day in the future, it certainly becomes easier to convince voters of the need when they can also guarantee that any new revenues would be spent on transportation needs.

Proponents include a range of business groups, AAA, transit advocates in the Baltimore and Washington, DC regions, and real estate professionals; with little organized opposition to the measure.

Wisconsin is considering a similar measure. With a conservative governor, Scott Walker, and a legislature resistant to raising the gas tax or registration fees, Wisconsin’s referendum would amend the state constitution to require any revenues derived from the transportation system to be spent on transportation projects and making them non-transferable to other needs. To date, $1.3 billion has been transferred out of the transportation fund, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

The Wisconsin proposal actually had its genesis several years ago and has only now reached the ballot because state law requires two consecutive legislatures to approve a joint resolution before it can be placed on the ballot.

Supporters under the banner of “Vote Yes for Transportation” include chambers of commerce, corporations, and labor unions. While some advocates, such as Forward Lookout and Bus, Bike, Walk Wisconsin have expressed concern that this could be the first step toward restricting the use of transportation user fees for transit or other multimodal projects, nothing in this legislation appears to do anything like that, and according to Vote Yes for Transportation, “Wisconsin’s segregated transportation fund is the sole source of state funding for the entire transportation system – highways, air, rail, transit, harbors, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.”

There is no organized opposition, though some state legislators question the need for such a lockbox. Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) expressed concerns about special interests groups, saying, “It guarantees the highway lobby a lock on certain funds. To give one special-interest group a constitutional lock on a hunk of money, I do not think is good public policy. “

According to most of the data we’ve seen, both measures are likely to pass, but we’ll be keeping an eye on the results, and posting them on Transportation Vote 2014 after the election, so check back. You can keep track of the other state and local transportation ballot measures we’re following there as well.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s elections. If you have been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. Join us there.

Transportation-related measures we’re tracking in the 2014 elections

In just a few weeks on November 4, ballot measures and races with huge transportation implications will be decided at ballot boxes across the country. Some of the notable measures we are keeping an eye on would raise new revenue for transportation at the state or local level, while others redirect existing dollars. We’ll tell you more about each as we approach election day.

Bookmark our new page where we’ll be summarizing the issues and tracking the results: Transportation Vote 2014.

Transportation-related ballot measures tend to do well with voters — whether statewide or exclusively local measures — passing at around twice the rate of all other ballot measures. And transit or multimodal measures always do well, passing about 71 percent of the time since 2009. Voting Info Graphic 1

There’s a handful of notable questions being decided by state and local voters in just a few weeks, and we’ve rounded up the details on the ones we are keeping a close eye on for various reasons. Some are good, some are not so good, but they will all give us useful information about what state and local voters think and feel about transportation investment.

One of the most interesting statewide questions is in Massachusetts, where voters will be deciding whether or not to repeal part of the state’s new transportation funds approved just last year by the legislature — one which voters supported at least by implication when all but one of the supportive legislators won their primary election following the vote.

And one of the most interesting local issues actually started at the state level as well. After Clayton County’s bus service was cancelled outright in 2010, because of state law, the Georgia state legislature had to pass a law that would allow the County to levy a tax to join MARTA, the Atlanta region’s transit system. That one percent sales tax will be on the ballot in Clayton County on Nov. 4.

We’ll have a much more detailed look at both of those issues in the next few days, so bookmark this page and check back here on the blog.

As soon as election day is over, the focus will shift to 2015. If you want to know more about state legislation related to transportation revenue, you need to join us in Denver for Capital Ideas. There’s still time to register and make travel plans to meet us there. Don’t miss your opportunity to be a part of this terrific event that will help equip you to make things happen in 2015 and beyond.

Important state and local transportation measures will be decided at the ballot this year

This November a handful of measures will be decided at ballot boxes across the country to raise (or reduce in one case) new revenue for transportation at the local or state level. It’s not quite a new phenomenon — local communities have often gone to voters to raise additional money for transportation investments — but it’s grown in importance the last few years as federal transportation funding has been facing an increasingly uncertain future.

We will be keeping a close eye on a number of important races, including some that we’ve been following for some time.

In Pinellas County, Florida (St. Petersburg), voters will be deciding a question to raise the sales tax to build a light-rail system and put more buses on the road. According to the St. Pete Tribune, $30 million in property taxes that fund the transit agency would be replaced by an estimated $130 million a year from a one-cent sales tax hike. The new revenue would pay for the Greenlight Pinellas plan, which includes a 65 percent increase in bus service (including development of dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit) and development of new light rail. Supporters have brought together an impressive coalition, including vocal members of the business community. Michael Kalt, a senior vice president with the Tampa Bay Rays, told Greenlight that, “Transit is really the linchpin to economic success and improving the quality of life in any major metropolitan area.”

Just four years after their bus service was completely canceled, Clayton County, Georgia, one of metro Atlanta’s core counties, will go to the ballot to vote on approving a penny sales tax to restore local transit operations and join the regional MARTA system — something voters, local leaders and citizens alike strongly support. When Clayton County lost their bus service, they lost something that employers — especially those at mammoth Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport — depended on to get employees to work every day. There are thousands of airport-related jobs at the edge of Clayton County, and a good transit connection was a boost for residents and businesses desiring access to that economic magnet. This vote was made possible when the Georgia general assembly passed a measure to enable the local voters to raise that revenue; something known as “enabling legislation.” (Something we’ll be going into detail on with the agenda for Capital Ideas! -Ed.)

The Massachusetts legislature passed an ambitious plan in 2013 to raise the gas tax three cents and index it to inflation and requiring the state’s transportation agencies to raise more money from tolls, fees, fares, and others. Though all but one of the legislators who voted for the bill won their primaries earlier this year, opponents succeeded in getting a measure added to this November’s ballot to reverse the plan to index the gas tax to inflation (keeping the 3-cent increase, however.) In response, a broad coalition has been organized to urge MA voters to vote against Question 1 on the ballot to avoid cutting vital transportation funding that would help the state keep up with one of the oldest transportation systems in the country.

One consistent thread in these state and local stories is that the folks on the ground in these towns, cities, and metro areas know how important transportation is to their economic success. And keeping those local economies humming is key to our national economic prosperity.

Shortly after these important elections in November, the focus will turn to 2015 and what can be done to raise more money for transportation at the state level. Which is one reason why we’re convening a special conference called Capital Ideas on November 13th and 14th in Denver to bring those people making 2015 plans together with experts and veterans of successful plans to raise revenue at the state level.

Whether you are just beginning a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, Capital Ideas will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. (Find out more about that here.)

Support rolling in for Congress’ bipartisan proposal to unlock billions for local transportation needs

With the introduction of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act in the Senate, the proposal now is active in both chambers of Congress. This bill will give local communities greater access to federal funds by providing them a seat and a voice at the decision making table.

It was no surprise to us to see the support for this bill begin rising up from a myriad of mayors, business groups and local leaders after its introduction in the House earlier this summer and the Senate last month. They’re laser-focused on the economic development opportunities that can be provided by smart, merit-based projects in their communities. After all, they’re the ones who most directly deal with the fallout when companies can’t recruit talent because congestion is overwhelming, or workers can’t reach their jobs because of the limits to the local transportation network.

Here are some of the quotes that we’ve received in support of this plan in just the last few days.

Leroy Walker Jr.
Trustee at the Hinds County (Mississippi) Economic Development Authority
“As a businessman, I am extremely encouraged that Senator Wicker and Senator Booker have joined forces (along with Senators Begich, Casey and Cochran) to sponsor legislation in an effort to ensure economic empowerment for those who are too often cut off. This legislation will allow local counties and municipalities the ability to channel much needed funds toward priority projects already underway and jumpstart the viable projects waiting on deck. Our current system fails to support many projects that have buy-in from the community leaders who know best the needs of their towns. This legislation will provide a tremendous economic shot in the arm for communities across the United States. I am excited, and pray that all representatives get on board and support this smart legislation.”

Knox Ross
Mayor of Pelahatchie, MS
Chair of the Southern Rail Commission:
“Being allowed to compete for the matching dollars we need to capitalize on the potential of a rail station could mean the difference between finding economic success or languishing in the future. Senator Wicker and his co-sponsors deserve a lot of support for answering our call for greater access to Mississippi’s share of federal grant money.”

John Spain
Executive VP of the Baton Rouge Area Foundation:
“In the nine years since Hurricane Katrina turned southern Louisiana upside down, we have made enormous strides to get our local economies back on track. There is huge potential for economic success in the New Orleans-Baton Rouge region if we can overcome our challenges with transportation connectivity. This bill offers the opportunity to do that, and we applaud Senators Wicker, Booker and their co-sponsors for leading the way.”

Christian Bollwage
Mayor of Elizabeth, NJ
“This proposal is a pure win for cities, towns and suburbs, because it would expand the pot of money we can use to improve our communities and build our economies – by about $151 million in New Jersey alone, based on current funding. This legislation fixes a problem in the last federal transportation bill, which restricted local control rather than increasing it as promised, and would be a huge step forward.”

Gary Rhoads
Mayor of Flowood, MS
“The jurisdictions in our region have a shared vision for economic development that requires all of us to pitch in for joint projects that make vital connections. We think we have smart plans that could win funding, if we are given the chance to apply for them. Senator Wicker’s bill could make all the difference for us.”

Dan Hollingsworth
Mayor of Ruston, LA
“On behalf of the city of Ruston, I urge passage of the Wicker-Booker bill. This bill restores traditional principles of rewarding dollars based on merit, engaging our representatives in Washington on needed, collaborative projects that otherwise would be impossible. Good projects that promote economic development and quality of life ought to have a leg up, rather than wait in line for years for dollars to trickle down. This is a great idea whose time has come.”

John Marks
Mayor of Tallahassee, FL
“Tallahassee has committed to a vision of mixed-use historic districts connected to our universities by walking, biking and transit and mix-use development within one-mile of our Amtrak station. The projects we envision will deliver a strong return on investment for Tallahassee, surrounding areas and the state of Florida. We can fulfill this vision by gaining access to funds like those made available through the Wicker-Booker bill, and we strongly support its passage.”

Jamel Holley
Mayor of Roselle, NJ
“To become the model 21^st century community we aspire to be, we have to be able to build the infrastructure that goes with it. But without grant programs like this, we are hard pressed to do more than maintain what we have. Senator Booker understands this, and we are proud that he and Senator Wicker are taking the lead in helping communities like ours compete for a larger portion of our state’s federal dollars.”

Sly James
Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri
Cities like mine are hard-pressed to be able to address billions of dollars of deferred infrastructure maintenance. State Department of Transportation funds are helpful, but are often not targeted to specific needs that are well known locally. No one knows better than local city leaders which projects are most critical or strategically important. We see the problems, and the potential, and we connect with the people who live and work here in ways others simply cannot. Those same city leaders should, therefore, have some opportunity to access funding to accomplish those goals in a way that boosts local economic activity, which in turn results in a stronger state economy. A competitive local grant program as proposed in the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act would enable local leaders to pinpoint areas of greatest and/or most immediate need, advance strategic projects that meet those needs, and efficiently marshall capital and human resources to create and/or sustain jobs in the local economy.

Be sure to send a message of support to your congressional representatives in the House and Senate today letting them know you support this smart piece of legislation.

Helping interested communities make better use of land around transit lines and stops

A new pilot program from the Federal Transit Administration will help communities make better use of land around transit lines and stops. For those interested in applying, T4America recently pulled together several experts in a session to help them understand how to best take advantage.

One of the few bright spots in MAP-21 was the creation of this small pilot program of competitive grants for communities trying to support better development within their new transit corridors — a smart way to boost ridership and support local economic development.

With applications due in November, this T4America webinar was timely for those municipalities hoping to take advantage of federal dollars intended to better capitalize on the value of past investments in transit.

Nearly $20 million is available to support transit-oriented development around “fixed guideway” projects, which includes light rail, subway, streetcar, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit running in separate lanes. Grants from $250,000 to $2 million will be allotted to the best applicants from across the country that are focused on mixed-use development, affordable housing, and bicycling/pedestrian needs and have a strong, proven partnership with the private sector.

John Hempelmann, founding partner of Cairncross & Hempelmann, praised the private sector for leading the way on partnerships with transit agencies, realizing that projects like these bring both jobs and economic opportunities to the area.

“Urban growth is happening all over the country. We have this opportunity and we need to do this right.”

Hempelmann also stressed that while the program was over-subscribed, applicants should take heart. Because it’s oversubscribed, he said, it shows the Department of Transportation that local communities want this type of development. And just by applying communities are making progress by working to get private businesses on board and form coalitions. Even for the applications that don’t win funding, these critical partnerships can be of benefit in the future.

It’s not just about partnership with the private sector, though. The U.S. Department of Transportation has made it clear that if a project spans multiple jurisdictions, they want to see partnerships between the communities to show dedication to the project.

Beth Osborne, senior policy advisor for Transportation for America, highlighted the absolute necessity for these kinds of partnerships throughout the community, since it proves to the Department of Transportation that there is not only local interest, but also local support and commitment to the project.

“They want local commitment to the project; people can often be just as important as cash,” Osborne said.

Private and institutional land-owners and developers are critical to the long-term success of transit-oriented development, because they’re the ones most often putting their capital up or building the actual product in these areas around transit lines. Creating partnerships that can do it right offer the greatest opportunities for creating walkable, connected neighborhoods with good access to jobs and affordable housing.

We’ll continue providing similar resources like this webinar, and we’ll be tracking the progress of these applicants and reporting back on the winners hopefully in 2015. To keep updated on these kinds of webinars, sign up for our newsletter here, follow us on twitter, and check back here regularly.

(Ed. Note: Also featured as speakers were Homer Carlisle, Senior Professional Staff for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Sarah Kline, policy director for Transportation for America.)

Denver’s ambitious transit expansion plan was almost left at the station

Denver’s amazing bet on an ambitious and comprehensive plan to expand their transportation network a decade ago very nearly crashed upon takeoff. Getting creative while staying committed to the vision helped them weather an economic storm and pull off “a public transit miracle.”

The story of exactly how they kept that vision chugging along was explored in-depth in this terrific piece from National Journal, filling in some of the backstory to our own in-depth profile on Denver’s “can-do” aspirations. As we chronicled earlier this year, Denver had heard from potential employers that the lack of transit connections were hampering the region’s economic development goals, so they came up with a huge regional plan to invest billions in new transit infrastructure. So what happened next? According to National Journal, “Voters agreed to tax themselves for a commuter rail network. Then a budget shortfall almost doomed the whole project. Now it’s on track to completion.”

How they pulled the second half of that is an amazing story.

Three years earlier, Colorado voters had approved a high-profile ballot measure to raise $4.7 billion through sales taxes to build the train system called FasTracks. Now the costs were projected to run well over $6 billion. The money from available tax revenues might allow the rail network to be finished by 2042, internal analysts told the Regional Transportation District (RTD).

…The recession of 2008 hit not long after, which took the scapegoat spotlight off of RTD. But the transit authority was still stuck with a big rail plan and about half the money they needed to build it. They had two options. They could scrap their construction schedule and build one line at a time as tax revenues trickled in. Or they could get creative.

Getting creative is exactly what they did, finding savings and other money from a range of sources, all while staying committed to the full, previously agreed-upon system, rather than doing things slowly and piecemeal.

[Former Mayor and current Governor] Hickenlooper was one of many business and civic leaders in metro Denver who viewed mass transit as the key to making the city a major metropolitan force. They didn’t want Denver to be prominent just in the United States. They wanted to compete with cities throughout the world. You need people movers for that, or businesses won’t locate in your region.

That theme of keeping Denver competitive on a stage bigger than just the West or the United States is one we heard over and over again when writing our own take on Denver’s story earlier this year:

Tom Clark can cite the exact moment in 1997 when metro Denver’s economic leaders became convinced that a more comprehensive rail and bus network was critical to the region’s prosperity. They were talking to executives at Level 3 Communications about a potential relocation, but their prospects were balking. They were afraid that without transit, Denver’s potential workforce was effectively cut in half because of congestion on I-70, the main east-west interstate artery.

“They were the catalytic piece of us deciding that we really had to get serious and get transit back on the ballot again,” said Clark, CEO of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation. “It was one of those a-ha moments in your life where you just go ‘Wow, this has real economic implications.’”

Denver’s story — whether of “how” they dreamed it up or how they kept it from going off the rails — is one that a handful of metro areas are keen on replicating today. Don’t miss that full story from National Journal.

Bill to unlock billions for local transportation grants now live in House and Senate

With last week’s introduction of the Senate version of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, a bill that would create a new program of grants for local transportation needs, it’s time to send unified messages of support to the House and the Senate together in support of this bipartisan, bicameral proposal.

Urge your Rep and your Senators to cosponsor this bill today. Send them a message today.

As we shared with you last week, in one of their last acts before leaving for campaign season, five Senators introduced a bipartisan bill Thursday to give local communities more access to, and control over, a share of the federal transportation dollars that flow to their state. The bill, led by Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), would help ensure that those who know their communities’ needs best will be making decisions on how transportation dollars should be spent.

Support has been rolling in from mayors and other local leaders, but now that this bill is live in the House and the Senate, it’s critical that they hear that this idea has strong local support.

Even if you’ve already sent a message to one chamber, take just a minute to send a joint message to the House and the Senate today on this bill — it’s critical they hear from us on this.

Want to know more about this bill and how the new program would work? Start here: The details on a new bill giving locals greater access to their federal dollars.

Polemics give way to compromise on House rail bill

For the last few years, congressional debate over the nation’s passenger rail system has been a discordant tug-of-war between visions of high-speed rail and moves to privatize popular Amtrak corridors and kill operational support. The logjam appeared to break last week with a unanimous committee vote on reauthorizing passenger rail. The compromise bill recognizes the benefits of a truly national passenger rail system and seeks to improve it rather dwell on drawbacks.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by Michael Patrick. /photos/michaelpatrick/110090972

Most importantly, it preserves a national system of state-supported and long-distance routes and authorizes funding for the system that is consistent with the recent appropriations for Amtrak. While passenger rail certainly needs far more investment than it’s getting to truly prosper and meet the burgeoning demand, T4America was encouraged to see representatives who once had a hard time finding common ground agreeing on some important fundamentals.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 (PRRIA) does indeed lower the authorized amount of funding for Amtrak by 40 percent from in the level last adopted in 2008, capping it between $1.4B and $1.5B for each of the next four years. Although that looks like a step backward, in reality Congress never appropriated the full amount of authorized funds. Because there was no dedicated revenue source passenger rail funding was subjected to a contentious debate over general fund spending each year. The new bill yields to that reality and sets funding at the levels of the last several years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that we’ve had budget proposals in the House over the last two years that appropriated between $1.0 or $1.1 billion for Amtrak — $400-500 million less than this reauthorization proposal from the same chamber.

There are some other interesting and positive changes worth highlighting.

The bill authorizes new competitive grant programs for the Northeast Corridor and for the national network. These programs are authorized at $150 million each for the next four years. The NEC program requires that states put up their own money equal to the federal grant, and the projects that can be funded must be on a priority project list to be developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The bill will take the important first steps toward restoring rail service to the Gulf Coast, a region that has been disconnected from the national network since Hurricane Katrina forced the suspension of rail service along the coast. It’s an encouraging sign that the committee recognizes the value not only of preserving our current rail network, but expanding it to serve additional regions.

Some of the overall structure for funding also changes under this bill. Congress currently funds Amtrak under two programs: operating, and capital/debt service. This year, Congress funded these two programs at $1.39 billion. The bill restructures these programs into a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund and a National Network Account at a total of $1.412 billion. The NEC account may be used only for that corridor and permits Amtrak to reinvest operational revenue there. The idea of privatizing the Northeast Corridor is off the table, at least for now.

The bill includes several requirements intended to create greater transparency in Amtrak’s financial reporting, increasing accountability and oversight over budgets and financial decisions. Calls by some members of Congress for increased competition in passenger rail were answered with a new pilot program (limited to two routes) that will allow rail carriers that own track used by Amtrak to submit a competitive bid along with Amtrak to provide the same level of passenger service there. The winning bidder would receive the right to provide passenger service for 5 years, with subsidies that would decline over time.

This bill does not contain everything that Transportation for America has called for, however.

For example, there’s still no dedicated funding source identified, which means that Amtrak will still have to fight for funding every year in the annual appropriations process. And some of the provisions related to Amtrak’s finances and operations could lead to changes in service down the road, such as the requirement that Amtrak contract with an independent entity to develop a new methodology for determining which routes to serve.

Still, in a Congress marked by partisan gridlock, we’re hopeful that this encouraging compromise in the House can lay the groundwork for creating a dedicated funding source for rail service that will put it on the same footing as other transportation modes.

Transit still more popular with millennials, despite their upbringing

One of the deepest studies of attitudes about public transportation, published yesterday, finds that core fundamentals like speed, reliability and cost are far more important to millennials than wi-fi or smartphone apps. They’re open to riding it even more, but like everyone else, find that there just aren’t enough neighborhoods being built that have great transit options.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by wowwzers.

Our own recent poll explored the attitudes of millennials in relation to cities and their general positive attitudes about public transportation, but this terrific survey from TransitCenter goes even deeper with questions to people of all ages from all over the country on what they think of transit and where they live as a whole.

What type of neighborhood are they currently living in? What type of neighborhood would they like to live in? What is the ideal type of neighborhood to live and raise a family in? How does one make a decision to change how he or she gets around?

According to this 12,000-person survey by TransitCenter, a civic philanthropy, unsurprisingly, people under age 30 use public transportation the most, across the 46 metros surveyed. They looked at a variety of places that broke into two distinct categories; metros considered “transit progressive” akin to San Francisco or Washington, D.C., or “transit deficient,” like Little Rock, Arkansas and El Paso, Texas. Age was the greatest factor overall, non-dependent on region, education level, or income.

One of the more interesting findings in the report was that “there is no unique ‘cultural bias’ against transit in [the South, Midwest], and that if you build a quality transit system (and the land use is supportive), people will ride it no matter where they are from.”

While it’s been proven that younger generations are most likely to use public transportation, it’s largely happening in contrast to their upbringing. The report shows that millennials were less likely to: have been encouraged to walk or bike by their parents, to have grown up within walking or biking distance of a commercial district, and less likely to have traveled by themselves on public transit as children. In fact, 39 percent of them said their parents thought it was unsafe for them to ride transit.

This shows a huge generational shift (though maybe just an insight to human nature) from their Baby Boomer parents who grew up in denser urban neighborhoods and might have used transit as children. The over-60 group is now the least likely group to want to live in urban areas and rides public transit the least. As the report states, “Put simply, Baby Boomers don’t live in – and largely don’t want to live in – places well-served by transit.”

Some surprising findings upended the conventional wisdom that’s been reported about millennials. Better smartphone apps or wi-fi on their buses or trains are near the top of the list of things that would induce them to ride more often, right? Nope. Across every single age group, the fundamentals were the most important consideration of all: quicker trips (speed), more stations near them, cheaper, and more reliable than other options.

The findings on housing confirmed much of what’s been reported by Smart Growth America, the National Association of Realtors, and a handful of other recent polls: the market is not building enough of the kind of neighborhood that is in the highest demand these days.

TransitCenter found that 58 percent of all respondents wanted to live in neighborhoods that consisted of a mixed use between housing, retail, offices, and restaurants that provided a variety of options to get around including public transportation and safe walkable streets. However, only 39 percent currently live in such a neighborhood, creating a huge demand for this ‘ideal’ neighborhood.

Meeting the demand for that type of neighborhood — especially in places connected to today’s or tomorrow’s transit lines — will create a positive feedback loop of boosting ridership. Supply more neighborhoods connected to transit, and you’ll create more riders out of the people who say they’d ride it if they could, but don’t live somewhere it’s available.

While a majority of Americans may not necessarily want to live downtown in a big city, they do want their neighborhoods to transform into better towns or suburbs centered around a mix of uses with more options for getting around.

The findings in this smart survey should inform the elected officials, commissioners, and policy advocates planning for the needs of our growing and diversifying population in towns and cities of all sizes.

Bipartisan Senate bill introduced today would give local communities greater access to federal funding

Five Senators from both parties just introduced a bill this afternoon that would give local communities more access to, and control over, a share of the federal transportation dollars that flow to their states.

Urge your Senators to sign on as a cosponsor of this bill by clicking here and sending them a message today.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act establishes a modest set-aside for merit-based grants to local communities, to help them realize homegrown visions for economic success and improved quality of life. Grants would be awarded by a panel of representatives from local and state jurisdictions, ensuring that funds go to well-conceived projects with strong local support and potential for high return on investment.

The Senate bill was introduced Thursday by lead sponsors Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS), along with cosponsoring Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Thad Cochran (R-MS). This bill is a dramatic, bipartisan statement in the Senate, which now has a companion bill to one introduced in the House in June by Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL) and Dina Titus (D-NV).

“On behalf of our alliance of local elected, business and civic leaders, I want to thank Senators Booker, Wicker, Begich, Casey and Cochran for their leadership in responding to the needs of local communities and taking a stand for their needs and priorities,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America.

Transportation for America Chair John Robert Smith, a former mayor himself, said he hears a constant refrain from local elected officials that they have little to no say in how their state’s federal dollars are used.

“The local leaders I’ve talked are held directly accountable for their local transportation needs,” he said. “They’re absolutely willing to compete and be held accountable for results, but they need better access to resources to meet their communities’ needs. This proposal would give them a seat at the table and award the funds in a competitive process, with the state’s cooperation, to help steer investment toward projects with the greatest bang for the buck. It would take a major step toward restoring funding for local needs to ensure that those who know their communities’ needs best will be making decisions on how transportation dollars should be spent,” said Mayor John Robert Smith.

“As a former mayor, I understand local leaders are often in the best position to make sound, cost-effective investment decisions,” said Senator Cory Booker in today’s joint press release with Senator Roger Wicker. “This proposal will give New Jersey’s 565 municipalities a seat at the table and greater opportunities to fund innovative projects that will create jobs and boost the economy.”

“Local officials in Mississippi are on the front lines of America’s transportation challenges but often lack the resources to pay for critical improvements,” said Senator Wicker. “This measure would enable these local leaders to have a larger role in deciding which projects merit consideration. In doing so, leaders could implement the most targeted and cost-effective solutions to meet unique and urgent infrastructure needs.”

It’s telling to note that this bipartisan group of Senators represents highly urbanized states (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) as well as states with large numbers of rural and smaller towns (Mississippi and Alaska). But small town or big city, these Senators are responding to what they’ve been hearing from their local mayors and county officials. And putting more resources and control in the hands of local communities — usually left at the mercy of the state’s priorities each year — makes a lot of sense.

After all, it’s those same local mayors, county executives, or commissioners who catch the most flak from their constituents when commutes are too painful, when there aren’t good options for getting around, when crumbling infrastructure stalls traffic, when workers can’t connect to their jobs, when streets are unsafe, or when goods get stuck in congestion.

And often, all it takes is a relatively small boost to match the dollars and energy of local communities. The grant program envisioned in the Wicker-Booker bill would be something like the nationwide TIGER program, but offered within each state. With that program, a town like Normal, IL, was able to complete a $49.5 million multimodal station that revived their downtown and catalyzed $220 million in private investment.

Wouldn’t it be great to see that kind of story repeated in towns and cities of all sizes across the country?

This bill represents one of the best opportunities we’ve had in some time to ensure that more transportation dollars get used where they’re needed most; to be spent on the very best projects that local communities need.

Send a message to your Senators, urging them to support this important bill, or thanking them for introducing it today. With just a few days left in this Congress before they leave town for recess, it’s important that we create a lot of support for this bill over the next few weeks.

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts follow the trend: voters support transportation revenue increases

As voters have been proving over and over during primary season this year, raising taxes or fees for transportation isn’t a political death sentence – no matter the party or political affiliation. In the past two weeks, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire’s state legislators faced their first primary since voting to pass bills to raise additional state revenue for much needed transportation and infrastructure projects.

See all the primary results in states that have approved transportation fee increases here.

Vermont passed House Bill 510 in March 2013, to diversify their transportation revenue by introducing a 4 percent sales tax on the price of gas. This raises the overall gas tax by 7.5 cents, though it put a floor and a cap on the new sales tax portion so that Vermont drivers will never pay less than 13.4 cents per gallon or a maximum of 18 cents. H.B. 510 also authorized $10.38 billion in bonds.

“It was not an easy choice to move in this direction, and we didn’t make this decision lightly,” said House Transportation Chair Pat Brennan (R-Colchester) said at the time.“ We explored anywhere between 15 to 20 different funding options, and we ended right back here every time.”

The measure passed 128-42, with 18 Republicans and 104 Democrats voting “aye.” Of the 15 supportive Republicans who ran again, just one lost in the primaries on August 26^th. Leigh Larocque (R-Barnet) lost to Marcia Robinson Martel. All of the 86 Democrats who supported the bill and ran for re-election won their primaries.

Massachusetts’ ambitious H3535, enacted in 2013, raised the gas tax 3 cents and indexed it to inflation, while also requiring the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to raise a greater portion of their costs – up to an additional $229 million a year — through various avenues including tolls, fees, fares, and others.

In the heavily Democratic state, the bill passed 158-38, with 157 Democrats and just one Republican voting yes. All but one of the 133 supportive Democrats running for re-election won their primaries, with Rep. Wayne Matewsky (D-Everett) losing his seat to Joseph McGonagle, Jr.

(There is a footnote to these results in Massachusetts. A measure has been added to this year’s November’s ballot to reverse the legislation completely. One benefit of that is that, after these primaries, we’ll have another public referendum on raising transportation revenues put directly to the voters. It’s just one of many important ballot measures we’ll be keeping a close eye on here this November, so check back. – Ed.)

New Hampshire has a very similar story. In 2013, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 367, which increased the per gallon tax by 4 cents. The funds raised were dedicated to rehabilitation and bridge repair projects for the next two years. In the last version of our report on bridge conditions in 2013, New Hampshire had the eighth-worst bridges in the country, with 14.9% of all bridges rated structurally deficient. The bill also added bonds for the widening of Interstate 93.

The bill passed 208-150, with 186 Democrats and 22 Republicans voting in favor of upping the state’s investment in transportation. Just three of those supportive legislators running for re-election failed to keep their seats, meaning 98.13 percent kept their seats after supporting SB 367. 21 state legislators decided not to run for re-election for various reasons.

John Graham (R-Bedford), William O’Neil (D-Manchester), and Steven Briden (D-Exeter) lost their seats in Tuesday’s primary. As of this writing there is no indication that the transportation revenue vote was a primary culprit.

Among all states holding primaries after a transportation tax increase – these three plus Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Wyoming – supportive legislators have kept their seats at a rate of 98 percent. Voters clearly have been rewarding their state legislators who are brave enough to make the hard decisions when it comes to funding transportation and infrastructure.

All of the primaries this season in the states that we’re following have occurred, so we’re wrapping up this series for now. But all of these results are chronicled in one place now on our website, along with our page tracking all of the considered and enacted state plans to raise transportation revenue.

Latest round of TIGER grants announced, track them on our interactive map

The latest (sixth, if you’re counting) round of TIGER grants has been released — $584 million worth going to 72 projects in every corner of the country. (Click on the map below to see them on our updated interactive map.)

TIGER grants, you’ll recall, can go to any mode or combination thereof, and often go directly to local governments or transportation agencies – unlike most other federal dollars, which are targeted to specific modes and flow through the state department of transportation via funding formula. Given their flexibility and ability to support innovative proposals, TIGER dollars are intensely sought-after.

This year was no exception. The U.S. DOT says it received “797 eligible applications from 49 states … an increase from the 585 applications received in 2013. Overall, applicants requested 15 times the $600 million available for the program, or $9 billion for needed transportation projects.”

One of the best features of TIGER is that it brings all kinds of other money to the table – local, state and even private. Each one of those TIGER dollars will leverage almost three dollars in matching funds from other sources. (*The matching funds can include other federal money in some cases).

The U.S. DOT identifies each project by primary mode. By that reckoning, 15 of the 72 (27 percent) were for primarily transit projects, while 26 were road projects, or 38 percent. But, of course, many of them address more than one mode – which makes them TIGER projects!

“The U.S. DOT has done an outstanding job of selecting a wide variety of innovative projects in communities small and large,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “Because they arise out of local initiatives to meet local needs, these TIGER projects will save lives, improve commutes and access to jobs, reduce costs for goods shipment and add to the quality of life wherever they are completed.

“Once again, TIGER has illustrated the incredible demand for flexible dollars to help local communities do the projects that support the modern economy and solve multiple problems at once. Congress needs to build on this success by creating a larger pool of dedicated funding for competitive grants both at the national level and within each state.”

Here some highlights of the kinds of projects funded:

Connecting workers at all wage-levels to jobs. In Richmond, VA, a $24.9 million grant will go towards a 7.6 mile bus rapid transit line to “connect transit-dependent residents to jobs and retail centers as well as spur mixed use and transit-oriented development in a city with the highest poverty rate in Virginia,” according to the DOT summary. Omaha, NE, will receive $15 million for a new bus rapid transit spine to reduce travel time to major employment hubs in the city. “Roughly 16 percent of the households within a quarter of a mile of the proposed bus-rapid transit route do not currently have access to a vehicle.” Pittsburgh, PA, received $1.5 million toward design of a “cap” over Interstate I-579 that would connect lower income residents of to downtown jobs.

Making optimal use of road capacity. The Champaign-Urbana region and the University of Illinois won $15.7 million toward a $35 million project “to construct Complete Street corridors connecting the Cities of Champaign and Urbana to the University of Illinois and improve transit travel between the cities and the campus.” In Maryland, $10 million is going toward a $42 million “road-widening project that would upgrade MD 175 from an existing two-lane undivided arterial to a six-lane divided arterial, complete with a trail, sidewalks, and on-road bicycle facilities.”

Freight and ports. TIGER is one of very few avenues for support for freight in the entire federal surface transportation program. (We’ll be exploring that deficiency in this space soon. –Ed.) This round, $11 million goes to the South Carolina State Ports Authority to rehabilitate and improve connections and access, and $20 million to the Port of Seattle Terminal 46 project to rehabilitate port facilities; “construct a storm water system to treat terminal runoff; increase load capacity and extend crane rail at dock; construct new road to grade-separate truck traffic from rail yard; and provide public amenities to access 13.8 acres of habitat around the terminal site.”

Safety for people on foot and bicycle. Among the largest awards, the City of New York’s Vision Zero safety effort won $25 million toward a $50 million, 3-part safety improvement program across the five boroughs including “safe pedestrian access to schools, safe pedestrian access to transit, and safe bicycle access to jobs via completion of a trail system connecting economically distressed communities to employment centers,” according to U.S. DOT.

Smart planning. $210,000 goes to North Central Texas Council of Governments for Land Use Transportation Connections to Sustainable Schools Project, creating a regional program and implementation plan to promote connections and coordination between transportation agencies, local governments, and schools within North Central Texas. In St. Paul, MN, $200,000 will fund a design study and master plan for reusing the Canadian Pacific Rail Spur as a multimodal corridor for bicycles, pedestrians, and possibly transit. The overall objective will be to develop a plan for how the bicycle, pedestrian and transit communities can use the rail line.

TIGER grants have now been around long enough that we’ve seen winning projects go from start to finish, like the Uptown Station project in Normal, Illinois — just one that shows how the targeted transportation investments in TIGER can help create jobs, boost local economic development efforts, connect people to jobs, improve freight movement and revitalize communities across the country.

T4America statement in response to passenger rail reauthorization bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today released a long-awaited update to the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, the law that funds passenger rail.

James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

“We are pleased that Chairmen Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Jeff Denham (R-CA) and Ranking Members Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Corrine Brown (D-FL) were able to work together to draw up a bill that preserves funding for our national rail network.

Reliable intercity rail is critical to our nation’s future economic success. It not only provides key links among large population centers, it also serves as a lifeline to smaller communities without air or intercity bus service.

Even as it strengthens the prospects of long-term federal support for our national passenger rail system, the bill also invites states to become stronger partners with investments that will further solidify the national network and its future. We hope the renewed commitment demonstrated by this bill opens the door for Congress to create a dedicated funding source for rail service, putting it on the same footing as other transportation modes.”

Budget battles leave a cloud over transportation funding as lame duck session looms

Same story, different year. Once again, we’re nearing the beginning of a new fiscal year on October 1, and Congress has failed to pass a budget to fund the government for the upcoming year. Even if Congress adopts a temporary budget to avert a shutdown —which is looking likely — important transportation programs could be left on hold on until lawmakers pass a full budget.

The House and the Senate never resolved their disagreement over the annual appropriations for transportation for the upcoming fiscal year — one of many budget issues that they couldn’t agree on this year. As in years past, the Senate provided more money for transportation programs in their appropriations bill than did the House. See the last column in the table below:

	FY14 USDOT actual	GROW AMERICA Act for FY15 (President's 4-year proposal)	HOUSE FY15 THUD Proposal ( & difference vs FY14 actual)	SENATE FY15 THUD Proposal (& difference vs FY14 actual)	DIFFERENCE between House & Senate FY15 proposals
Federal-Aid Highways	$40.26B	$48.062B	$40.26B	$40.3B (+$40M than FY14)	+$40M in Senate proposal
Transit Formula Grants	$8.6B	$13.914B	$8.6B	$8.6B	-
Transit 'New & 'Small Starts'	$1.943B	$2.5B	$1.691B (-$252M than FY14)	$2.163B (+$220M than FY14)	+$472M in Senate proposal
TIGER	$600M	$1.25B	$100M (-$500M than FY14)	$550M -($50M than FY14)	+$450M in Senate proposal
Amtrak Operating	$340M	Proposes to roll passenger rail into two new programs that total $4.775 billion*	$340M	$340M	-
Amtrak Capital	$1.05B	same as above	$850M (-$200M than FY14)	$1.04B (-$10M than FY14)	+$190M in Senate proposal
High speed rail	$0	same as above	$0	$0	-

*Up to $35 million is available for planning activities in the Senate FY15 THUD proposal.
**The FY15 Administration Budget (Grow America Act) consolidates existing rail programs into 2 new programs (Rail Service Improvement Program and Current Passenger Rail Service).

With no progress made toward passing individual appropriations bills, or an “omnibus” that includes them all together in one package, Congress is moving on to temporary measures.

Yesterday, the House introduced a “continuing resolution” to extend government funding through mid-December that, if adopted, is expected to pass the Senate shortly afterward. That would ensure that the government can continue operating at the same funding levels as this past year. But it means that negotiations on a full budget will have to take place during the “lame duck” session, after the November elections but before losing members leave and new members arrive. That, or punt once again again until the new Congress starts in January.

With the elections likely to change the political landscape of Capitol Hill, it’s hard to predict what might happen after November 4th with any certainty.

In any case, as long as the government is operating via a short-term budget, any programs that are discretionary at USDOT (i.e., not funded from the Highway Trust Fund) will likely face great uncertainty. That means the next round of TIGER grants, money for new transit expansion (New and Small Starts), and passenger rail funding might see delays in when they’re awarded — creating even more funding uncertainty for states, metro areas and transit agencies.

At least the Highway Trust Fund is on stable footing until May, right, since Congress managed to scrounge up $10.8 billion through all manner of accounting gimmicks to temporarily delay insolvency?

Well, perhaps.

You might remember that about a year ago, USDOT was predicting that the trust fund would go bankrupt sometime late in 2014. Once we got into 2014, however, the deadline started shifting earlier. September. August. Then the end of July. So, in truth, who knows whether $10.8 billion actually will get us to May? It wouldn’t be too surprising to see a report from USDOT sometime in January or February, much as last time, saying that the trust fund is likely to reach insolvency a little sooner than previously thought.

One way or another, we’ll know more soon. Provided a shutdown is averted, members of Congress are scheduled to leave Washington after next week until the elections.

New grant program to support smart development around transit lines is open for business

Webinar info updated below: A program created in the 2012 transportation law to help communities plan for transit-oriented development is open for business — and T4America is ready to help your community win some of that grant funding.

Building structured parking, public amenities and pedestrian-safe streets are part of the public infrastructure needed for successful economic development around transit.

One of the few bright spots in MAP-21, the 2012 update of the federal transportation program, was the creation of a small pilot program of competitive grants for communities trying to support better development within their new transit corridors — one smart way to boost ridership and support local economic development. *Funds can also be used on projects that increase capacity on existing transit lines, but for the most part, these funds will support planning for new transit lines.

It’s a small program, but one that could have a huge impact in the recipient communities. The Federal Transit Administration announced late last week that they’re now accepting applications from transit agencies until November 3, for a total of almost $20 million in available funding (for the two years since MAP-21 passed).

(Speakers updated 9/23) With the FTA open to receive grant applications, T4America has organized an online session to explain the program, how it works, and what kind of applications FTA will be looking for. We’ll have Homer Carlisle, professional staff for the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Development Committee, John Hemplemann, Founding Partner of Cairncross & Hempelmann, as well as experts from Transportation for America to discuss this new program. Find out more information about this webinar taking place on Friday, September 26, and register today right here.

According to the notice from FTA, “the grants will fund comprehensive planning that supports economic development, ridership, multimodal connectivity and accessibility, increased transit access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and mixed-use development near transit stations.”

This type of planning has been used successfully in transit corridors such as the Foothill Extension of the Gold Line which connected 11 small cities east of Los Angeles, the West Corridor that connects Denver with the suburban community of Lakewood, and the Green Line which connects Minneapolis to Saint Paul. As shown in these cases, planning for development along the entire corridor – rather than just one station area at a time –can attract private-sector interest as well as stronger community consensus by creating a complete picture of the development opportunities presented by the new transit line.

Rail and rapid bus lines often cross multiple jurisdictions, which can make coordinated planning of development at stations difficult. As an example, while most would agree some share of housing along such lines should be affordable to low-wage workers, what if none of the cities along the line choose to provide for it as part of new development at their station areas? What if one of the cities chooses not to allow walkable development at all around their new station, undermining the ridership potential of the entire line? Coordinated planning involving all of the jurisdictions along a corridor can help to address these issues at the front end, to capture the maximum development potential of the line.

FTA will focus on funding the kind of planning that would not occur without federal support. Grants will fund planning around an entire transit corridor, not just individual station areas, particularly corridors where there are significant challenges to transit-oriented planning, low levels of existing development, or limited local financial capacity.

Transit agencies that are building new transit systems or upgrading existing ones will be eligible to apply for new planning grants, in partnership with local land use agencies and the private sector, to help them efficiently locate jobs and housing near new transit stations, boosting ridership and increasing the amount of money gained back at the farebox.

A dozen states have moved to raise transportation dollars, with more to come: Track them here

With Congress continuing to flail on providing stable funding, many states are finding they can’t wait and are moving on their own. But it’s not always as simple anymore as adding pennies to a per-gallon gas tax, so states are taking some creative approaches.

You can learn about what 12 states already have done – and the political fall-out from it – with our revamped and refreshed tracker. You’ll also see what’s brewing in still more states.

With the Highway Trust Fund still headed for insolvency due to declining vehicle miles traveled and more fuel-efficient vehicles, states have increasingly been coming up with their own plans for raising additional transportation revenue over the last few years — and 12 states have approved plans to raise additional revenues.

Version 2.0 launching today has plenty of new information on these state plans with some comprehensive details on how votes broke down on successful bills. Perhaps most interestingly, you can see how voters responded to those politicians who supported plans to raise additional transportation revenue.

Want a hint about that one? How about this:

View “How do voters respond to state legislators raising transportation taxes?“

As we’ve been chronicling on the blog for the last couple of months, the conventional wisdom has been turned on its head with the recent primaries in these states — members of both parties supporting any sort of tax or fee increase for transportation have been winning their primaries almost across the board. With Massachusetts and New Hampshire primaries taking place Tuesday of this week (as well as Vermont just a few weeks ago), we’ll update the numbers on this page later Wednesday — numbers we don’t expect to change a whole lot.

This updated resource provides detailed information on and bill numbers for the current (or immediately recent) funding plans that were considered as well the 12 successful plans to raise revenue at the state level for transportation.

Click on through to see the full array of information, including tables with the vote results on the bills and results from the primaries for supportive elected representatives.

Did we miss something? Let us know.

TIGER grant winners to be announced this week

News on the winners of the sixth round of TIGER, the popular federal grant program for innovative local transportation projects, is leaking out already, with formal release of the full list expected later this week.

It’s always a poorly-kept secret when the winners of USDOT’s TIGER grants are about to be announced because of the requirement to notify congressional representatives for districts containing a winning project a few days before the full announcement. As a result, news on some of the winners begins to leak out 2-3 days before the list of winners from USDOT is released.

Some that have already surfaced:

Bus rapid transit in Richmond, Va.
A project to expand the port in Norfolk, Va.
A new bridge on the border of Maine and New Hampshire
A system of downtown and waterfront street improvements that includes a new greenway trail in Waterbury, CT
A new metro station near an emerging job core in St. Louis, MO
And quite a few others.

We’ll have the full list here as soon as it’s released, and then add new winners to our full map of all six editions of TIGER grants dating back to February 2010. That’s a great way to see the nationwide impact of this important program all at once.

Click to see the full map of TIGER transportation grants.

So what are TIGER grants? First, TIGER stands for Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery — a nod to its creation following the economic collapse of 2008-2009. TIGER leverages federal funding and public resources much farther than traditional federal transportation programs. In fact, over the first five rounds, on average, projects attracted more than 3.5 additional non-federal dollars for every TIGER grant dollar.

Almost all of these winning projects over the years have been projects that have a hard time getting funded under the outdated structure of the current federal transportation program.

These projects in communities across the country will create good paying jobs, spur local economic development, and keep our metro and rural areas connected. Winning project applications have to show multiple benefits: 1) that projects improve the condition of existing facilities and systems, 2) contribute to the economic competitiveness of the U.S. over the medium- to long-term, 3) improve the quality of living and working environments for people, 4) improve energy efficiency, reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and benefit the environment, and 5) improve public safety.

To get a good idea of what a successful TIGER story looks like, look no further than the great story of Normal, Illinois’ new downtown (er, well “Uptown” in this case!) multimodal train station, profiled earlier this year in our ongoing series of local successes, and made possible by one of the first TIGER grants.

Normal, Illinois

A medium-sized city in central Illinois was one of the first to utilize a new, experimental program of competitive federal transportation grants to help implement a city-backed, city-led plan for revitalizing their downtown with a new transportation and civic centerpiece for the town.

It’s a successful model of exactly the kind of investments the federal transportation program should be supporting, and proof that it’s not always just big projects in big cities leading the way.

Read the full story here