Skip to main content

Tag: freight

A smaller footprint for freight

A cyclist rides his cargo-bike down a New York Street

Freight plays a valuable role in keeping our communities and local economies thriving, but heavy freight vehicles pose unique challenges to community roads and air quality. Fortunately, not all good things have to arrive in a diesel-powered package.

The following post was co-authored by T4A Policy Manager Corrigan Salerno and T4A Policy Intern Sam Packman.

A cyclist rides his cargo-bike down a New York Street
(NYC DOT)

The size of the vehicles on our roadways can make a big impact on our travel. Larger vehicles are harder on our roads, leading to an increased need for maintenance. Large freight vehicles, often diesel-powered, produce harmful emissions that have historically hurt marginalized communities the most. And the larger a vehicle is, the more likely a crash will result in a death, particularly for people walking. However, they also serve an essential purpose: carrying the goods we need.

Fortunately, efforts to address the size and carbon-footprint of freight vehicles are already making inroads across the country.

Reducing freight emissions

Because medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are major sources of both greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution, reducing tailpipe emissions and oil use in this sector can support improved public health outcomes and help mitigate the climate crisis.

In our work co-leading the Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE), we advocate for policymakers to engage closely with communities most impacted by freight pollution and maximize benefits to create or maintain high-quality manufacturing jobs. Multiple groups in CHARGE are leading the way to help reduce medium- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Among them, the Electrification Coalition leads a consortium of industry partners toward freight electrification. CALSTART’s Trucks and Non-Road Vehicle Initiative supports faster adoption of low-emission, high-efficiency trucks and heavy equipment. Last year, the Environmental Defense Fund released a report to guide municipalities on how to form and evaluate Urban Freight Partnerships, stakeholder engagement groups that shape decision-making around urban freight.

CHARGE also supports policies that reduce distances traveled by larger freight vehicles while transitioning shorter, urban freight deliveries to electric micromobility, where applicable.

What does micromobility have to do with freight?

While large freight vehicles come in handy for long trips, when they make last-mile deliveries below full capacity, they produce just as many harmful tailpipe emissions as they do at full capacity. In these instances, cleaner, smaller, and safer microfreight options can help.

A man in an orange vest drives a pedal-powered vehicle that can fit in a bike lane
NYC DOT pedal-assist e-cargo bicycle, “Cargi B” (NYC DOT)

From more traditional electric bikes with space for cargo to new types of wider pedal assist bikes with semi-enclosed cabins and capacious holds, the flexibility of microfreight enables deployment in a variety of contexts. These vehicles can transport smaller amounts of cargo and thanks to their smaller size, they’re able to bypass road congestion, avoid clogging up the road themselves, and reduce wear on local roads. As an added bonus, the cost to charge e-cargo bikes can beat out fueling heavy vehicles.

Already on streets across the country, microfreight works well with a microhub model, where goods are first transported by traditional heavy- or medium-duty vehicles to an urban hub, then taken to their final destination. Learn more about how microfreight can support last-mile deliveries here.

Modernizing and improving the efficiency of our freight vehicles can support the nation’s efforts to maintain our roadways, improve traffic safety, and reduce harmful emissions. As innovations continue to move forward, policy will play a key role in ensuring efforts to reduce the most negative impacts of freight will succeed.

Statement on Surface Transportation Board’s expanded capacity

press release

A statement from Transportation for America chairman and former mayor of Meridian, MS, John Robert Smith, on the Surface Transportation Board (STB)’s recently expanded capacity: 

“Transportation for America commends the Surface Transportation Board for creating a new passenger rail desk to expedite slow decision-making that often impedes the expansion of reliable passenger rail service. While freight railways are critically important to our nation’s logistics network and the effort to reduce transportation emissions, these companies too often serve as a hurdle to delivering passenger rail that meets 21st century needs. 

“Although Congress gave Amtrak the right to operate passenger trains over all freight right-of-way, many freight railroads have simply said ‘no’ to proposed passenger service. Amtrak’s only hope for resolution laid at the STB.

“Slow STB decisions—due to limited capacity—benefit those standing in the way of passenger rail in the long-term, and end up discouraging many areas from even considering passenger rail as a solution to mobility needs. We are happy to see the STB take steps to address this problem and hope to see more and more reliable passenger rail as a result.” 

USDOT announces funding available for the new FASTLANE freight and highway grant program

Last year’s five-year FAST Act transportation law included a new freight program for the first time (see this section under “A one-size-fits-all freight program“) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has announced that the first round of $800 million in competitive grants is open for business. 

Last Friday, USDOT released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the new competitive grant program for freight and highway capacity projects, created in last year’s FAST Act.

The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program includes a dedicated competitive freight program totaling $4.5 billion over the life of the five-year FAST Act, with $800 million available in FY2016. The department has renamed the program and it’s a mouthful: The Fostering Advancements in Shipping and Transportation for the Long-term Achievement of National Efficiencies (FASTLANE) grants.

Last week’s FASTLANE funding notice outlines the FY2016 discretionary competition structure and criteria being used to measure applications. Full applications are due by 8:00 PM EDT on April 14, 2016 and should be submitted through www.Grants.gov.

Transportation for America has summarized the NOFO for our members. Download the members-only summary here (pdf).

While Congress’ FAST Act legislatively limits Secretary Foxx to using the majority of this program’s funding for highway-only capacity improvements for freight, there are still possibilities to think outside of the box. The grant program does indicate a determination to support projects that reconnect communities torn apart from interstate development, such as capping highways.

Beth Osborne, T4America’s Senior Policy Advisor, and Michael Rodriguez, AICP, Director of Research for Smart Growth America, will provide an informative session discussing both the FY2016 FASTLANE and TIGER grants program for T4America members on Thursday, March 4 at 4:00 pm EST. Register for this members-only webinar here.

Updated – Ten things to know about the House transportation bill

Updated 11/5/2015 5 p.m. EST. We wrote this post in preparation for consideration of this bill on the House floor. But after the House finished consideration of the bill on Thursday (11/5), we updated this post to reflect the changes made (or not made) over the last few days. Look for the updated notes in the blue boxes with each item below and read our full statement on the bill here. -Ed.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee debated and approved their multi-year transportation reauthorization proposal last week. Next step is consideration on the House floor and then, if approved, conferenced (merged through negotiations) with the Senate, which passed their multi-year DRIVE Act back in July. Here are ten things you need to know about what’s in (or not in) the House bill which is expected to be considered on the House floor early next week.

ten-things-house-bill-strr

1) The House will likely tap the same non-transportation revenue sources as the Senate did to pay the tab

Though the House has yet to officially pass a plan to pay for their bill (unlike the Senate), we expect them to closely emulate the Senate plan to cobble together about $45 billion from numerous future funding sources to fully cover the cost of the first three years of their bill. Though as many as 10 years would be needed to realize some of the new revenues to cover the next three years of spending, it would instantly transfer billions from the general fund to the transportation fund, increasing the deficit, a practice that Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) called “generational theft.” We’ve already tapped general taxpayer dollars to the tune of $73 billion over the last few years to keep the nation’s transportation trust fund solvent.

One factor possibly complicating this plan is that the House and Senate just reached a separate budget agreement (to keep the government operating) that also requires selling oil from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a mechanism that comprised the second largest stream of funding for the Senate’s bill. If that expected $9 billion in revenue for the DRIVE Act is no more, how will the House fill this gap?

For a detailed rundown of the Senate’s funding plan the House is expected to emulate, read our ten things post on the Drive Act.

Updated: The House did indeed use the Senate funding sources as their starting point, but there was a fairly stunning development late on Wednesday night when an amendment was proposed that taps billions from a Federal Reserve surplus account; an amount that could be sufficient to fund the bill for a full six years. It may be one way to allow other contentious payfors from the Senate to be removed — the dividend rate change for banks among them — but it could also nearly double the amount of money available. We’ll be watching this closely as more news develops.

2) Enshrines three more years of policy into law than we can pay for

The Senate bill — and we expect the House bill to follow suit as covered above — authorizes the surface transportation program for six full years but includes a funding plan that can only cover the first three years of the bill. The bill would use $46 billion in future offsets to cover its three-year length, leaving a future Congress to find another $50 billion or so to pay for the last three years. We’d be the first to say that we urgently need the certainty and stability that a multi-year bill provides to states and local communities as they plan transportation investments, but this is unprecedented and it’s incredibly shortsighted to lock our country’s transportation policy in stone for six years when we aren’t willing to pay for it. Especially when we’re enshrining transportation policy into law for the next six years, which simply doesn’t do enough to meet the needs of local communities of all sizes. Which leads us to…

Updated: Per the point above, it’s unclear just how much funding is going to be available. Enough funding for the first three years will be transferred, but the new funding sources tapped via amendment on Wednesday will provide far more funding and could be enough for the full six years of the House bill. Leadership will have decisions to make about what to do with the additional funding.

3) Misses a golden opportunity to provide more funding to local communities

The House bill is a major missed opportunity for giving cities, towns and local communities of all sizes greater access and control over federal transportation dollars. An amendment from Representatives Davis (R-IL) and Titus (D-NV), with broad bipartisan support, would direct more flexible funding to towns and cities and increase transparency in how projects are selected, but it was not included by the committee. Representatives Davis and Titus will be offering this amendment on the floor and we are going to need your help to make sure it gets into the bill.

Just like the Senate, the House bill does slightly increase the share of the bill’s most flexible funds that go to local communities by five percent (up to 55 percent of just one of many core highway programs), but that improvement only happens incrementally over the six years of the bill. This means that the full increase comes in the later years of the bill that likely won’t be paid for anytime soon — see #2 above. The House bill does lower to $10 million the minimum cost of projects that can apply for low-cost TIFIA loans, making it easier for local communities to access this smart federal financing program, but far more must be done to ensure that towns and cities both big and small have the resources and control they need to stay to invest in the infrastructure they need to be economically competitive.

Updated: The Davis-Titus amendment was not allowed to be brought to the floor by the House Rules Committee, despite the significant bipartisan support — among the most for any amendment offered. This means that there was no airing of the argument on the House floor and no chance for even debating the merits of giving local communities more control or authority over transportation dollars. This was a major point of contention raised in our final statement on the bill.

4) Includes a freight program to help states and metro areas address goods movement issues, but needlessly limits innovative multimodal projects

Similar to the DRIVE Act, the House bill encourages crafting a multimodal freight plan but only about 10 percent of the new roughly $725 million per year discretionary freight grant program can be spent on multimodal projects. This means that the House is dictating from Washington exactly how states and metro areas should solve their freight challenges, robbing them of the flexibility to invest in whatever option can best keep freight moving.

This flies in the face of past statements from this same committee, which stated clearly in a report three years ago that our freight issues are multimodal and require multimodal solutions. “Moving goods and people effectively depends on all modes of transportation,” said Chairman Shuster in that report. “Because bottlenecks at any point in the transportation system can seriously impede freight mobility and drive up the cost of the goods,” Rep. John Duncan added, “improving the efficient and safe flow of freight across all modes of transportation directly impacts the health of the economy.” The committee’s recommendation was to “ensure robust public investment in all modes of transportation on which freight movement relies.” The committee should take its own advice.

Updated: This was unchanged.

5) Small changes to transit funding with sizable implications

While the bill largely preserves the historical share of funding overall intended for transit, it makes two changes that will have significant impacts on communities planning new or expanded transit service to meet the burgeoning demand for housing and jobs near public transportation.

First, while highway projects will continue to have 80 percent of their costs covered by federal highway funds, the committee lowered the share paid on transit capital projects to 50 percent. While many big transit projects already match more than half of the cost locally, especially in more prosperous metro areas, poorer and smaller communities will both be punished. Federal Small Starts transit capital funds often cover well over 50 percent of the cost for new bus lines or bus rapid transit service in smaller communities, which will be disproportionately impacted by this change.

Secondly, the House bill eliminates the flexibility for a state or metro area to use a portion of the flexible federal funds that they control outright as the local contribution or match for transit projects, taking away more of the flexibility and control from local communities that this committee professes to value. Representatives Lipinski and Nadler spoke up during committee and are working to fix these before the bill is finalized on the House floor.

One piece of good news is that the small grant program to help support smart development around transit to help boost ridership and the bottom line will continue to be funded at $10 million per year for 6 years.

Updated: An amendment from Rep. Nadler and several others to fix this was approved and incorporated into the bill, though it doesn’t quite return things to standard practice of today. Under the House bill as passed, states or metros will be able to shift their CMAQ funds to transit projects and use that as part of their local contribution to a project. This can raise the effective federal contribution to these projects over 50 percent, though the match rate will stay at the new lower 50 percent rate. We’ll have some more information on this soon.

6) A once sizable loan program (TIFIA) slashed by 80 percent; no support for transit-oriented development projects

The TIFIA low-cost financing program — where federal loans are paid back from local revenues often generated from the projects themselves — is cut significantly from $1 billion down to $200 million per year. Congress had just massively increased this program in the current MAP-21 law in order to stretch our limited federal dollars as far as possible and leverage other revenue sources. And with so much more loan money available after that 2012 increase, Congress directed USDOT to award dollars in a first-come, first-serve basis instead of by competition based on the merits of the projects. Now the House proposes to cut the program by 80 percent while still preventing USDOT from judging projects on need, performance or return on investment.

Secondly, Representative Edwards (D-MD) and Barbara Comstock (R-VA) were urged to withdraw their amendment to allow transit-oriented development projects to be eligible for receiving these low-cost TIFIA loans — a common sense proposal that would net more riders and revenue for the operating agencies and cost the federal government zero dollars.

Updated: This amendment was yet another rejected by the Rules Committee, which barred it from receiving a vote or debate on the House floor. This amendment had zero cost and allowed these projects only to apply for funding. TIFIA — one of the points of pride for the architects of MAP-21 — remains slashed by 80 percent (down to $200 million) in the final bill.

7) New performance measure on condition and access for disadvantaged urban areas

Thanks to the efforts of Representative Andre Carson (D-IN), the House bill does include a new performance measure intended to “assess the conditions, accessibility, and reliability of roads in economically distressed urban communities.” While we’d like for this section to include a more holistic measure for access — as in access to jobs or opportunity by any mode of travel as a better and broader indicator than relying on simply road condition — we’re happy to see the amendment’s inclusion. This signals that the House is open to conversations on adding new or improved performance measures to the bill. That’s a positive development.

Updated: No change made to this amendment. However, a similar amendment from Reps. Ellison, Grijalva, Waters and Huffman would have expanded on this idea and “established performance measures for accessibility for low-income and minority populations and people with disabilities; cumulative increase in residents’ connection to jobs; and the variety of transportation choices available to users, such as public transportation, bike and pedestrian pathways, and roads and highways,” per our amendment tracker. This second amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee.

8) Better planning to alleviate income-draining commutes and connect more people to jobs

An amendment from Representatives Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Ryan Costello (R-PA) was included to expand transportation options for commuters — with a focus on low-income communities — by leveraging the resources of employers and the private sector. Larger metropolitan areas would be required to develop regional goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours and improve transportation connections between areas with lots of jobs and areas where low-income households are concentrated. They would be required to identify existing public transportation services and employer-based commuter programs that support better access to jobs and identify proposed projects and programs that could reduce congestion and help connect more people to jobs.  This is modeled after the successful Commuter Trip Reduction program in Washington State, which we profiled indirectly in this case study on a vanpooling program there.

Updated: No changes made.

9) The TIGER competitive grant program for smart state and local projects? Where is it?

Following yesterday’s announcement of another successful round of TIGER competitive grant awards and the proud press releases flying out of representatives’ offices from both parties, one might ask why TIGER isn’t included in the House bill. With leaders in the House speaking regularly of the need to get a better return on investment for our limited dollars, leverage other funding sources, and encourage more local innovation, they’d be smart to formally authorize TIGER — a grant program which can help realize those goals. Neither the House or Senate bills do this, and the communities that rely on this program — one of the few ways they can directly receive funding for their projects — will have to wonder each year if Congress’ appropriators will keep the program going.

Updated: TIGER is still M.I.A. in the final House bill. The bill has no increased competitive funds for innovative multimodal projects, save for the slight amount of the new freight program available for multimodal freight projects. The House bill continues the status quo of awarding funds and largely stays away from any shift to awarding funds based on benefits, merits or possible return on investment.

10) Where did the TAP program go?

The Transportation Alternatives Program that states and local communities use to help make walking and biking safer and more convenient was folded into another program (the Surface Transportation Program) and capped at $819 million per year over the life of the bill. This program already makes up just two percent of the total highway budget, and it will be even less if this bill is approved as is. While the policy was not changed in any damaging way, capping these funds (in a bill where all other programs increase in funding with inflation over the life of the bill) more or less guarantees that TAP will be capped in any future House and Senate conference agreement.

Updated: TAP was unchanged, though there were several amendments rejected that would have further reduced its funding or allowed states and metros to flex its funding away to other programs. But in a bill where almost all other programs grew at least slightly, TAP’s size is capped over the life of the bill, which results in an actual decrease in funds due to inflation — “compound dis-interest.” With possibly six years of funding now procured by the House, we could be looking at no net increase in funds for biking and walking for six more years instead of just three.

The Senate’s multi-year transportation bill misses the mark on multimodal freight

Below is an in-depth explanation of one of the 10 things you need to know about the Senate’s DRIVE Act.

The Senate’s multi-year transportation bill recognizes that efficient freight movement is important, but the bill prioritizes freight moving on highways over that moving by rail, air, ports and pipelines.

The DRIVE Act (HR 22) is unique from past transportation bills in that it creates a program for freight. The bill includes almost $1 billion for freight in its first year and up to $2.5 billion toward the end of the authorization in 2021. (The bill was more robust when originally introduced in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, providing $2 billion in the first year and rising to $2.5 billion. It was scaled back to a smaller cost when some of the DRIVE Act’s “pay-fors” were deemed too controversial).

The program features a comprehensive and thoughtful national- and state-level planning framework to analyze the condition and performance of the national freight transportation system.  It would require states to identify priority projects for improving freight movement regardless of mode – including rail, seaports, pipelines and airports. Yet the program restricts the majority of funds to highway projects. Only 10 percent of the money it provides to states can go to other modes.

This funding model would fall far short of the costs of multimodal freight projects. California, for example, would be allocated $90 million under this program in 2016, only $9 million of which could be used for non-highway projects. The Port of Los Angeles’s West Basin Railyard project – a rail and port project – costs $137.7 million.

Similarly, Illinois would have less than $4 million available. Chicago’s CREATE program – one of the most significant freight projects in the nation, which would improve rail freight efficiency throughout much of the country – costs over $3 billion.

This restriction seems burdensome, particularly since the new program would be paid for out of the general fund, not by roadway users. Congress has taken funding from across the board and restricted it to highway projects, even if a state says that its priorities for freight are elsewhere.

Also troubling is the fact that the National Freight Program’s funding would be distributed among the states evenly, using a formula that ignores where freight volumes are highest or where goods get stuck in congestion or bottlenecks. It’s the equivalent of investing wildfire prevention dollars in all 50 states even though a majority of fires are in the dry, arid west.

Reducing the country’s freight bottlenecks and helping businesses efficiently move commerce is a worthwhile goal, and one that can only be achieved with a truly multimodal freight program. When the House takes up their transportation bill in the early fall, we hope they rethink the DRIVE Act’s distribution formula and the restrictive funding cap on non-highway projects to ensure this program lives up the goals outlined for the National Freight Program.

10 things you need to know about the Senate’s DRIVE Act

The Senate approved their multi-year transportation authorization bill by a 65-34 vote this week. You can view our full statement on the DRIVE Act here from T4America Chairman John Robert Smith. Meanwhile, here are 10 things that you need to know about what’s in the Senate bill.

 

1) Funding from deficit spending vs. pay-as-you-go

How do you pay for a six-year transportation authorization when the transportation fund is broke and Congress is unwilling to raise the federal gasoline tax? For the DRIVE Act, the Senate bridged the gap between dwindling user fee revenues and total spending by getting creative. In the end, they cobbled together $46 billion in non-transportation-related funds, fees and accounting maneuvers.

Among some of the more controversial “pay-fors” in the Senate bill is a requirement to sell 100 million barrels of the 693 million barrels in the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between 2018 and 2025, estimated to bring in $9 billion if it can be sold at $95 per barrel ($30-40 more per-barrel than today’s price). Add to that the indexing of customs fees (ironic for a Congress unwilling to index gasoline taxes), an extension of airport TSA fees through 2025, closing estate fee loopholes, and reducing the “fixed dividend rate” the Federal Reserve pays to banks.

But while the bill needs 10 years to recognize some of the new revenues or savings that won’t occur until the 2025, it would instantly transfer billions from the general fund to the transportation fund, increasing the deficit. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) called it “generational theft,” while T4A Chair John Robert Smith asked, “Is it fiscally responsible to place the cost of paying for three years of transportation investments on the backs of our children and grandchildren?”

A final point of clarification on the length of Senate bill: the DRIVE Act authorizes six years of spending, but provides only three years of funding certainty. In 2018, Congress will have to find an additional $51 billion to fully fund the bill for the remaining three years of its authorization. Despite calls from a diverse cross-section of industry and advocacy groups for a “long-term, sustainable funding solution” for transportation, the DRIVE Act is patched together with temporary and speculative “pay-fors,” the type that are only going to get harder to find three years from now.

PolicyTen-year savings
Reduce the fixed dividend rate the Federal Reserve pays larger banks$17.10 billion
Sell 101 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve$9.05 billion
Index customs fees for inflation$5.70 billion
Extend current budget treatment of TSA fees from 2023 to 2025$3.50 billion
Use private debt collectors to collect overdue tax payments$2.48 billion
Extend Fannie/Freddie guarantee fees$1.90 billion
Require lenders to report more information on outstanding mortgages$1.80 billion
Close an estate tax loophole about the reporting of property$1.50 billion
Clarify the statute of limitations on reassessing certain tax returns$1.20 billion
Revoke or deny passports for those with seriously delinquent taxes$0.40 billion
Devote civil penalties for motor safety violations to the Highway Trust Fund$0.35 billion
Stop paying interest when companies overpay for mineral leases$0.32 billion
Adjust tax-filing deadlines for businesses$0.30 billion
Allow employers to transfer excess defined-benefit plan assets to retiree medical accounts and group-term life insurance$0.20 billion
TOTAL$45.80 Billion

2) Local communities get the short end of the stick…again

The DRIVE Act bypasses America’s cities and towns, reducing the already small amount of funding they directly control to invest in locally-driven projects by nearly $200 million in the first year alone compared to MAP-21. We were extremely disappointed to see a bipartisan amendment from Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), with support from Sens. Casey (D-PA), Durbin (D-IL), Peters (D-MI) and Stabenow (D-MI) fail to receive a fair hearing on the floor. Their plan would have put a larger share of transportation dollars in the hands of local governments by increasing the amount of flexible federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars directly provided to metropolitan areas of all sizes and allowing direct access to the funding for rural areas through a grant program. By failing to bring more dollars, control and accountability closer to the local level, the bill fails to restore the trust of the American people in how our transportation decisions are being made.

3) Progress on a national freight policy but with funding stuck in 20th century silos

The Senate recognized the economic importance of moving goods efficiently throughout the country by including a new freight program that also includes real funding: almost $1 billion in the first year, and up to $2.5 billion annually towards the end of the authorization.

Unfortunately, 90 percent of the dollars reserved for the freight program are restricted to highway projects. This decision runs counter to the realities of how our freight moves: generally, no one product gets to its destination by one mode of transportation, but rather relies on a interconnected and efficient system of ports, rail lines, highways, urban streets and intermodal yards all working together.

There’s a mixed message here. The bill requires USDOT, states and MPOs to conduct thoughtful national- and state-level freight planning to analyze the condition and performance of the freight transportation system and identify the highest priority needs to create greater efficiency and reliability in freight movement, regardless of mode. After all this planning is done, the Senate bill instructs states and MPOs to focus only on highway projects at the expense of rail lines, ports and a truly intermodal network.

4) For the first time, intercity passenger rail is included in a surface transportation bill

While the popular shorthand for the transportation authorization is “the highway bill,” the nation’s transportation program has included dedicated funding for public transportation and bicycling and walking since 1982 and 1991 respectively. But intercity passenger rail has been consistently left out of the overall surface transportation legislation – until now.

For the first time, the nation’s passenger rail policy is included in the bill, laying the groundwork for further improvements and expansion of the nation’s passenger rail service to match the recent unparalleled growth in ridership. Previously, the passenger rail bill has always passed as a standalone authorization, but the DRIVE Act would enshrine the policy in the nation’s surface transportation bill. While the rail programs would still require annual appropriations for funding, it takes an important step forward in providing Amtrak sustainable funding and helping to expand service to meet booming demand.

5) Popular TIGER program fails to win a permanent seat at the table

The USDOT’s competitive TIGER grants represent one of the few ways local communities can directly access federal funds for their local priority projects. While disaster was averted as the bill was being drafted and TIGER hasn’t been changed in this bill, the Senate missed a major opportunity to authorize the program and make it a permanent part of the nation’s transportation policy. If this bill passed, supportive lawmakers will have to continue to fight each year for TIGER funding through the annual appropriations process, resulting in up and down fluctuations in available funding year to year. That makes it tough for local communities to plan and compete within this popular and oversubscribed program.

Nearly one-third of the Senate endorsed Senator Patty Murray’s (D-WA) amendment to authorize TIGER and provide $500 million per year in contract authority via the transportation fund. Unfortunately, along with the Wicker-Booker amendment, this important provision was not given an open and fair hearing on the floor.

6) TIFIA loans can fund TOD, but under a dramatically scaled back program

One of Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) signature achievements in MAP-21 was an expansion of the TIFIA loan program from nearly $125 million up to $1 billion in annual financing authority. This move greatly expanded an innovative program of low-cost federal financing that doesn’t have to be repaid immediately, allowing the financial benefits of a project to accrue before payments are due. While two good changes were made in the DRIVE Act — making transit-oriented development (TOD) an eligible expenditure and making it easier for local projects, TOD and ITS to access this program by lowering the total project cost threshold lowered from $50 million to $10 million — the program’s funding was scaled back significantly, from $1 billion to $300 million annually.

7) Transit wins additional funds, but projects with private involvement can ‘skip the line’

Overall, public transportation was spared any cuts and in fact received a larger portion of overall authorized funding. As initially introduced by Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY), the DRIVE Act provided transit with 24 percent of the bill’s funding, but the new money used to fill the gap in the transportation fund was directed almost entirely to the highway program. As a result, the mass transit account was set to end the third year of the bill (FY2018) with a negative balance of $180 million. This was fixed on the Senate floor with help from Sen. Durbin (D-IL) and others, and in the end transit received a nearly 25 increase in funding over the six years of the authorization.

One provision in the transit title of the DRIVE Act generating controversy is the ability for projects with any private sector involvement in design, construction, operation, or maintenance of transit projects to jump to the front of the line for the already oversubscribed transit New Starts Program.

8) Active transportation funding survives intact

While the bill represents a missed opportunity for local communities on the whole, the bill slightly increases funding for the popular Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to $850 million, but it caps the growth there over the life of the bill. Unlike other programs, this means TAP will not be able to grow with inflation over the life of the six-year authorization.

On a positive note, communities that use TAP to help make biking or walking safer and more convenient will receive 100 percent of the program’s funds, meaning all $850 million will be available to communities. States formerly controlled half of the program’s funds — but no longer.

9) Limited progress to improve accountability through performance measures

The DRIVE Act takes one small step to build on project selection and performance management, a key reform of MAP-21. The DRIVE Act provides MPOs and states support in developing their performance measure programs by requiring USDOT to develop datasets and data analysis tools. This includes addressing data gaps for trip origin and destination, trip time and travel mode.

While USDOT has yet to complete their assignment to establish rules for the performance measures contained in MAP-21, there were steps available to the Senate such as including measures such as connectivity and access to jobs or improving project selection processes to open up the “black box” and provide greater transparency and understanding for why one project receives funds over another. None of these positive ideas were included in the DRIVE Act that passed the Senate.

10) Positive advances for next-generation transportation research

At a time when transformative changes in technology are beginning to reshape the transportation landscape, providing an outcome-based 21st century transportation research program is needed now more than ever. Fortunately, this is an area that the DRIVE Act did well. First, the bill establishes competitive funding for local governments and MPOs, among others, to deploy and test innovative research. This is important, since MAP-21 provided limited dollars outside of formula funds to test and deploy the next generation of transportation innovations. Second, the bill would require USDOT to study “shared use mobility” (car-sharing, bike-sharing, ride-sharing, etc.) and other innovative concepts, and provide local and regional leaders best practices and better understanding of the shared use transportation sector. This is important since we need to provide our leaders the understanding of this new transportation sector so that they can adequately plan and provide for its growth.

 

The last thing you need to know is that the work is far from over. While the Senate passed this long-term bill, both chambers also passed short-term extensions to MAP-21, setting up October 29th as the next deadline to agree on a multi-year transportation bill. Will the House pass the Senate’s bill? Will they draft a bill of their own? Will they fail to do anything and move to another short-term extension in October? Stay tuned.

Senate’s DRIVE Act Bypasses America’s Cities and Towns

press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC — Following the Senate’s successful vote to approve the DRIVE Act, a six-year transportation reauthorization bill with three years of funding, the Honorable John Robert Smith, former mayor of Meridian, MS, and the Chairman of Transportation for America, issued the following statement:

 “While the Senate is to be commended for taking the lead in moving beyond the repeated short-term extensions to the nation’s transportation program, this bill represents a major missed opportunity to give cities, towns and local communities of all sizes more control over and access to federal transportation dollars. We were extremely disappointed to see a bipartisan amendment from Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) to direct more funding to towns and cities of all sizes fail to receive a fair hearing on the floor.

Instead of increasing funding for local communities, as the Wicker-Booker proposal would have done, the DRIVE Act bypasses America’s cities and towns, reducing the overall amount of funding they control to invest in their locally-driven projects by nearly $200 million in the first year of this bill alone compared to the 2012 authorization (MAP-21). By failing to bring more dollars, control and accountability closer to the local level, the bill fails to restore the trust of the American people in how our transportation decisions are being made.

The Senate also failed to tackle the hard choices required to raise new, sustainable revenues — as at least 21 states and governors have done over the past three years — in order to truly put the nation’s transportation trust fund on stable footing. The Senate cobbled together $46 billion in non-transportation-related funds, fees and accounting maneuvers to keep the nation’s transportation trust fund solvent for the next three years — in some cases by relying on funding from sources ten years in the future to pay back the next three years of spending. Is it fiscally responsible to place the cost of paying for three years of transportation investments on the backs of our children and grandchildren?

The Senate bill does take a few positive steps forward. We’re encouraged to see the nation’s passenger rail policy finally included in the surface transportation program for the first time ever, laying the groundwork for continuing to improve and expand the nation’s passenger rail service in the years to come. Congress recognized the economic importance of moving goods efficiently throughout the country by including a new freight program — though the bill shortsightedly chooses not to take a more comprehensive approach, restricting 90 percent of the freight dollars to highway projects and ignoring ports, rail and other multimodal solutions that are urgently needed to unclog America’s freight bottlenecks.  The bill also preserves funding for the popular Transportation Alternatives Program and public transportation in general, and includes an important Safe Streets Act provision that ensures a more comprehensive approach to road design and safety for everyone.

While we’re thankful that the Senate has finally moved beyond short-term extensions and toward the multi-year funding certainty needed by states and cities to see their ambitious plans come to life, the final product needs to do much more. We look forward to working to improve it as the House drafts their bill and Congress seeks consensus on a multi-year transportation authorization bill before the recently-extended MAP-21 expires on October 29.”*


* The Senate is expected to approve a three-month extension to MAP-21 this afternoon.

 

CONTACT: Steve Davis
Director of Communications
steve.davis@t4america.org
202-955-5543 x242

US Senate Transportation Authorization – T4A Update

The US Senate continues to debate the federal surface transportation bill this week, with a series of votes taken last night by the full Senate. Individual senators filed over 200 amendments and T4America continues to track the latest developments on those amendments. We have compiled a brief update on where things stand and provide information on three amendments that we know would spur innovation, access and local control. 

**It is rumored that another manager’s amendment package will be offered in the near future. T4A will update this information as needed.

Transportation Funding Timeline Update: Transportation funding expires this Friday and the House announced this morning that they intend to pass a 3-month extension to match the Senate’s; setting up a new October 29 transportation funding deadline.

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) introduced what is expected to be the first of potentially two or more manager’s amendment packages. Manager’s packages serve as legislative vehicles to modify a piece of legislation in committee or on the floor, wholesale. This first manager’s package makes a number of changes, including maintaining the historic 80/20 highway and transit funding split; increases funding for the FTA High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program by $100 million (paid for by cutting TIFIA and the Assistance for Major Projects by $50 million each) and requires 50% of the off-system bridge set-aside funding in the STP program to be used on bridges that are not on the federal-aid highway system.

Last Sunday, the Senate dispatched a couple of non-germane amendments, but voted to allow Senators to vote on whether or not to tie the Ex-Im Bank authorization to the highway authorization. Late last night, the Senate voted and approved that plan (64-39).

Under this new modified manager’s package, T4A believes that it is unlikely that few if any of the 200+ plus amendments filed by Senators will be considered or voted on. However, we do anticipate the introduction of a third manager’s amendment which will reflect additional changes. T4A continues to work to increase local control, innovation and access to jobs and opportunity through three primary amendments. They include the following:

  1. Wicker-Booker STP local control amendment (corresponding fact sheet by USCM on changes to metro level funding)
  2. Murray TIGER authorization amendment
  3. Donnelly Job Access planning amendment (search for S. Amdt 2434, 2435 and 2436; this one is messy, our apologies)

Update: 5 Issues to Watch (for more information, please refer to T4A’s Member post on 7/23/15):

Pay-fors – Since the last post on 7/23/15, a number of items have shifted. A few provisions, considered poison pills, were removed, including the $2.3 billion that came from denying those with felony warrants social security benefits and $1.7 billion that came from rescinding unused funds for TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund. These rescissions leave the authorization with $43.7 billion, all of which are generated outside of the traditional transportation-user fee system. The measure would provide enough additional HTF revenues to provide the first three years of highway and transit investment, but Congress would be required to raise additional resources before October 2018 to be able to fund the final three years of the DRIVE Act’s authorized spending.

Transit funding – Changes in the manager’s package increased the levels of transit funding to be 24% of the authorized levels overall and 24% of any new funding generated annually.

Freight –The DRIVE Act creates a robust freight planning process that directs states to examine efficient goods movement and identify projects needed to improve multimodal freight movement. However, despite instituting a multi-modal freight planning process, the new National Highway Freight Program would require 90% of the funding go to highway-only projects rather than to multimodal projects using a performance-based system. What impact will this have?

Take, for example, the non-highway freight needs in the State of California. Ten percent of California’s funding would be only $9.3 million in 2016, growing to $23 million in 2021. Comparitively, one multimodal project at the Port of Long Beach in California to remove a railroad bottleneck and build more on-dock rail capacity cost the Port $84 million. T4A views this policy as a missed opportunity and not consistent with T4A’s freight policy.

Overall, due to removal of the TARP Hardest Hit Fund, the bill’s overall investment levels needed to be reduced. Under the first manager’s package, the freight program was set to receive $1.5 billion in FY2016 growing to $2 billion in FY2018. The program would now receive $991.5 million in FY2016 and increase to 1.9 billion in Fy2018.

Passenger Rail – No changes to note from the last update on 7/23/15.

Assistance for Major Projects (AMP) – Funding decreased by $50 million per year to increase funds for FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program. AMP would now be authorized at $250 million in FY16 and rise to $400 million in FY2021.

*NEW* TIFIA – The initial manager’s package introduced early last week would cut TIFIA funding from $1 billion to $500 million per year. Removing the TARP Hardest Hit Fund and other payfors required additional cuts, which senate authorizers took out of the TIFIA program. Those cuts, plus the increase to the FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair program, result in an overall authorized funding level for TIFIA at just $300 million per year over the life of the bill.

Over 150 elected officials, DOTs, MPOs, chambers of commerce and others voice strong support for restoring TIGER program

With the the Senate Commerce Committee due to mark up their portion of a long-term transportation bill that will eliminate the competitive TIGER grant program and refocus its funds on a multimodal freight program, more than 150 organizations and elected officials signed a letter urging the committee to restore and authorize the TIGER program.

In the full letter (pdf) delivered to Commerce Committee offices just a few moments ago, more than 150 organizations and individuals supported the simple ask of preserving (and permanently authorizing) the TIGER program while also keeping the committee’s smart multimodal grant program for freight projects:

We request that the Commerce Committee authorize a strong, multimodal freight policy and freight investment grant program, as well as pass a complementary, authorization of the TIGER grant program separate from the multimodal freight discretionary grant program at or near equal funding levels.

Without moving both of these critical investment programs forward, the Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act removes local leaders’ access to one of the only federal transportation programs open to them today and miss an opportunity to establish transportation investment programs that both promotes the efficient movement of goods and provides affordable mobility and access to opportunity for all Americans.

The groups represented on the letter included 30 mayors/cities, over 30 chambers of commerce, businesses, metropolitan planning organizations, advocacy groups of all stripes, a few universities, and a few city departments of transportation.

Want to join them? It’s not too late to send a letter of your own to your Senator urging them to keep TIGER alive.

Here’s why some of the letter’s signatories say they support this effort:

TIGER has been incredibly important to supporting economic development in our thriving region. Here that means strong freight connections as well as connections to high tech and aerospace jobs in growing job centers in our cities – quality jobs that are supported by all sorts of transportation connections. – Rick Olson, Director of Government Relations, Puget Sound Regional Council (Seattle).

A flexible TIGER grant program is essential to ensuring the economic mobility and prosperity of communities across our country. America is great for the individuality that each of our community possesses. Our local diversity is our national strength. Preserving this invaluable transportation program in the flexible form it now stands ensures that the progress and momentum we are now experiencing is sustained as we emerge from the Great Recession into the future. – Paul F. Morris, President and CEO, Atlanta BeltLine, Inc.

Access to programs like TIGER to fund multi-modal improvements to our transportation system is critical to the future of our community. Please keep TIGER flexible and useful as a tool to meet the transportation goals of individual communities. – Bruce Knight, Planning and Development Director, City of Champaign, Illinois

The TIGER program has been invaluable to the City of Indianapolis. From the construction of our world-class and unique Cultural Trail, to the deployment of 22 all electric buses, to the planning and design of our first rapid transit corridor – TIGER has been there and made our dollars go farther, faster. Changing one of the most successful federal programs to restrict uses would be a mistake. – Gregory A. Ballard, Mayor, City of Indianapolis

As the only USDOT initiative that specifically recognizes the vital link between transportation & economic development, it is imperative that the Congress continue the TIGER program, allowing communities across the country to promote sustainable investments that not only maintain, but actually improve our transportation system. – Rick Dunne, Executive Director, NVCOG – Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (Connecticut)

The TIGER grants have made some very important alternative transportation projects possible. The smartest way to solve congestion and pollution is to offer people alternatives to sitting in traffic jams. This is one of the most important ways the federal government can assist the local governments. It should not only be continued, but it should be increased. —Mark Gamba, Mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon

The TIGER program is a vital tool for local governments to enhance multimodal options, provide repairs to key pieces of infrastructure, and improve transit service. While the Broward MPO supports a national freight grant program, such a program should not be created at the expense of TIGER, especially when more and more Americans are demanding alternative transportation options. – Gregory Stuart, Executive Director, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization (Florida)

TIGER is a tremendous program that allows communities to create the kind of 21st century transportation infrastructure that is the foundation for a robust economy. I strong urge all Members of Congress to continue to support this important program. – Dawn Zimmer, Mayor, City of Hoboken (New Jersey)

The Commerce Committee’s markup takes place at 4:45 p.m. (eastern) today.

Keep those letters to your Senators coming and help preserve TIGER and the good it does for local communities.

West coast port closures example of the worst case scenario

The eight-month labor dispute that left fully loaded container ships anchored off the west coast for weeks caused an “epic” back-up that underscored just how critical the smooth movement of freight is to the nation’s economy.

An apparent settlement between port operators and unions representing 20,000 dockworkers has begun to untie the knot, but effects are likely to be felt for some time.

The slowdown has had a profound impact on agriculture, retail, technology, and myriad of other industries whose products ship through the 29 ports on the west coast. The trans-Pacific maritime trade came to a virtual halt during that period.

“Factories are shutting down due to non-delivery of component parts; citrus growers, nut exporters and beef exporters are getting slaughtered on the export side; and truckers are wasting endless hours as they await permission to retrieve cargo,” reported The Hill.

The shutdowns also had a sizable impact on the rail, air and trucking operations that distribute freight from ports to the rest of us, who now are straining under the sudden onslaught of goods. At full productivity, thousands of trucks a day carry off 40 percent of the country’s container cargo, starting the “first-mile” of transporting goods through an extensive highway and rail network.

The slowdown raised the profile of first-mile connections, but poor “last-mile” connections can have similar impacts: It currently takes nearly as long for freight to travel across the city of Chicago as it does to reach Chicago from Los Angeles. Much of that delay has to do with the conflicts between commuter traffic and freight movement. It lacks the headline-grabbing impact of a photo of dozens of container ships anchored in the background of an L.A. beach scene, but it’s an ongoing and damaging situation.

Today, we have no national comprehensive freight policy to pick the smartest investments — regardless of mode — to best move goods from Point A to Point B. As we stumble closer to MAP-21’s expiration date in May, we have an opportunity to change the way we depend on just a few means of transport.

Lawmakers need to ensure the capacity for long-haul routes, especially where they collide with population centers. Some metro regions are working to address this by giving residents other travel options to clear space for freight, but they need more federal resources to do the job. We need to direct both policies and resources toward addressing the costly and time-consuming bottlenecks in connecting the ships to the ports and the ports to the rail and truck yards. This can be achieved by targeting funding through competitive grant programs that ensure all appropriate modes are eligible as well as projects that relieve these bottlenecks and improve both first- and last-mile connections.

MAP-21’s reauthorization should also incentivize and support regional planning for freight movement, to ensure that these bottlenecks no longer threaten our economy.

UPS chief and other business leaders urge Congress to pass a bill that helps both commuters and freight

David Abney, the recently hired chief executive officer of UPS, recently penned an editorial in Bloomberg/BNA that provides an illuminating look inside the priorities of the booming freight company — based in the same city where we hosted a policy breakfast on metro freight movement just two weeks ago.

Everybody wins. Flickr photo by Thomas Merton

Everybody wins. Flickr photo by Thomas Merton

Abney’s comments put a bright line under the importance of Congress updating our country’s outmoded freight policy in the next federal transportation authorization.

He argues that Congress still needs to update the federal program from its roots in a 20th century “highway bill” to a truly 21st century “transportation bill” that knits all modes of transportation together. “My sense tells me that to truly impact America’s transportation infrastructure problem, we can’t approach it just from the standpoint of ‘trying to fix our road’ or ‘trying to fix our ports,’” he said. “Instead, we need to think first about the real end goals: 1) getting to and from our destinations and 2) making those commutes as quick, efficient and cost-effective as possible.”

When we were developing our policy platform a year ago based on the feedback we were hearing in meetings around the country, a consistent theme — especially when meeting with local chambers of commerce or metropolitan business leaders — was that moving freight and people was often one of their top priorities. Forget about the usual simple debates between spending on maintenance versus new road capacity, or whether a particular area should build this rail line or that highway; chambers especially seem to grasp that a) freight movement is critically important to the local (and national) economy and b) you can’t make a plan to move people that doesn’t also account for the movement of stuff, and vice versa.

But like any discussion of federal transportation policy these days, the elephant in the room is always funding. And affirming much of what you’d expect from businesspeople, they’re willing to pay more, but only for a smarter approach that can improve the bottom line:

Of course, before even having a broader debate about infrastructure, we need Congress to pass, at minimum, funding support for vital maintenance and repair programs. Otherwise today’s infrastructure won’t even be around for tomorrow’s solutions. …To address congestion and drive down transportation costs, we need a holistic approach–one that integrates all modes of transport, and that includes dedicated funding mechanisms. Whether it’s a vehicle-miles-traveled tax, raising the gas tax, implementing waste-reduction policies or reallocating government spending, we’ll need a way to pay for these crucial investments.

Abney’s thoughts are similar to what we heard in his company’s hometown just a couple of weeks ago for a policy breakfast we convened with the Metro Atlanta Chamber. At the Chamber offices in downtown Atlanta, we heard from Doug Hooker, executive director of the Atlanta Regional Commission (Atlanta’s MPO), Jannine Miller, senior manager at The Home Depot, and David Abney’s colleague Frank Morris, UPS’s vice president of corporate and public affairs.

All the speakers represented Atlanta-based businesses or metro leaders with a keen interest in seeing the region keep freight and people moving each day. “Atlanta started as a freight hub and has stayed true to that,” said Doug Hooker with ARC. “We, as leaders in Atlanta, need to figure out how that job growth center will continue in the future.”

While there are real flaws with the “Travel Time Index” when it comes to putting a specific dollar value on congestion’s cost to everyday commuters, businesses like UPS or Home Depot that deal in very specific timetables see much more tangible losses. “If UPS’ drivers are stuck, the company puts more drivers on the road. For UPS, a 5 minute delay on every driver every year costs UPS $110 million,” said UPS’ Morris.

“One of metro Atlanta’s biggest advantages is our multimodal transportation system,” said Miller with Home Depot, with a nod to the railroads that helped make Atlanta an economic powerhouse. “The future of our business will be heavily invested in utilizing those last mile connections.” The home improvement chain certainly knows about last-mile connections: the goods from manufacturers around the U.S. and the world eventually have to reach stores located everywhere from downtown NYC to small towns in California.

Because most companies like UPS can’t deliver off-peak, finding ways to reduce demand or more efficiently utilize roadway space at peak times can be a win-win for everyone. A robust and heavily-used transit system in a metro region could be a freight company’s best friend, moving large numbers of people quickly during peak commuting hours without having to take up space on highways they depend on, while also lowering transportation costs for metro residents. UPS’ Abney illustrated this people-first way of thinking in the superb conclusion of his editorial.

America’s transportation infrastructure can become stronger and more efficient if we work at moving people, not just planes, trains and automobiles separately. “Good” can’t be defined exclusively according to road engineering manuals, and while a nationwide “people-based approach” might sound idealistic, it’s also the approach most informed by bottom line impact. A truly functional transportation infrastructure system isn’t just about how many cars we can fit on a particular stretch of highway; it might be, for example, about how we can allow trucks to deliver along busy retail corridors, or how we can best facilitate customers being able to reach their local businesses, no matter where they are in the world.

Put differently, to really get the best bang for our infrastructure buck, we must measure and account for how transportation investments drive growth and support quality of life. The questions we ask about infrastructure need to change accordingly. Are there ways to achieve the same transportation goals by investing limited resources differently? Are we investing in the research, engineering and alternative fuels that will transform commutes and save money? And are we thinking about ways to “right-size” projects–selecting infrastructure investments that might accomplish 90 percent of our goals, but at a fraction of the cost?

Read the full UPS piece here.

Our thanks to Dave Williams and the rest of the team at the Metro Atlanta Chamber for hosting and organizing the terrific policy breakfast.

What does the FREIGHT Act really mean for our freight and ports?

Port of Oakland originally uploaded by ingridtaylar

There were a few questions bouncing around via Twitter and elsewhere about the new FREIGHT Act introduced yesterday by Senators Lautenberg, Murray and Cantwell. We issued a joint press release with a few other groups, but it’s worth spelling out in plain language some of the benefits of the bill.

For context, it’s worth understanding how freight transportation policy currently works now to understand how much of an improvement this bill would provide.

Today, there is no national freight program or specific national policy. There’s no dedicated federal transportation money that states, regions or ports can spend to improve throughput or operations at ports, intermodal facilities and freight corridors. And among the traditional federal transportation programs, freight rail projects in particular (much like passenger rail) aren’t eligible projects.

So if a port is congested or wants to expand, there’s little available federal money to spend directly on rail or any other mode. Your choices are highways or highways. When a state or port does spend to improve operations, there is no accountability to make sure they’re actually reducing port/freight congestion, moving freight faster, or reducing air pollution in surrounding communities —  a significant issue of environmental justice.

Under this new bill, there would finally be a coordinated national policy for freight and ports across the country, and for the first time public health and air quality surrounding freight hubs and facilities become strong criteria for awarding dollars.

No matter what ports decide to spend money on to improve their operations, they’d have to consider air quality, greenhouse gas reductions, and noise and water pollution in the surrounding communities with future federal investments. On top of that, there would be a merit-based grant program for projects that do the best job of improving freight operations while using money most effectively and hitting the benchmarks laid out in the bill.

Benchmarks? The goals in the bill set a powerful framework for accountability, spelling out what they money should accomplish, so taxpayers can know that their money is being spent wisely.

  • Reduce delays of goods and commodities entering into and out of intermodal connectors that serve international points of entry on an annual basis.
  • Increase travel time reliability on major freight corridors that connect major population centers with freight generators and international gateways on an annual basis.
  • Reduce by 10 percent the number of freight transportation-related fatalities by 2015.
  • Reduce national freight transportation-related carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent by 2030.
  • Reduce freight transportation-related air, water, and noise pollution and impacts on ecosystems and communities on an annual basis.

For example, a port in a coastal city in California would have to consider the impacts on the health of those communities surrounding the port. Would investing in more freight rail capacity ease congestion, lower overall emissions, and reduce local air pollution? These are the kinds of questions that would have to be answered.

“A truly multimodal national freight program that is accountable to measurable performance targets and benchmarks is something the U.S. has needed for a long time,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America in our press release.

“We applaud Senator Lautenberg for recognizing that our freight system can move our goods from coast to coast and power the economy while also being part of the solution for many of our most pressing problems: air quality, dangerous emissions, oil dependence, and congestion on our highways and interstates, to name just a few.”

Speeding up, cleaning up freight movement in the U.S.

Container trucks on an American highway Originally uploaded by futureatlas.com

Since Chairman Oberstar introduced the Surface Transportation Authorization Act (STAA) last summer, we’ve increasingly heard that addressing freight congestion is going to be a major component of any national transportation policy.

Projections of the increase in freight movement in the next few years are huge — total freight movements are projected to increase by 92% in the next 30 years, according to a comprehensive congressional study. Congestion on the railroad network is also forecast to spread — by 2035, thirty percent of the rail network, or 16,000 miles, will experience unstable flows and service break-down conditions.[i] Considering the strong efficiency advantage of freight rail, that’s very bad news.

We face a choice in how the nation will step up to meet the coming demand for moving goods — and how clean those solutions will be. The upcoming reauthorization of the federal transportation bill is a great opportunity to help achieve a smarter, greener freight system. The innovative freight projects highlighted in this week’s “Good Haul” report by the Environmental Defense Fund demonstrates the practical solutions that are economically smart, protect us from harmful air pollution, and provide jobs for American workers. We have a golden opportunity to focus investments on projects that use the existing freight system more efficiently and grow the economy, while improving air quality and meeting big-picture national goals.

We need to recognize the connections between goods movement systems and public health and fast track the innovative solutions that tie transportation investments that improve efficiency with those that also improve air quality. The Good Haul report demonstrates that there have been innovative projects to address both these concerns and that some regions around the country are leading the way — but none of the practices in the case studies reflect current accepted standards or federal policy.

It’s time for the nation as a whole to refocus on options to invest in clean green freight.

Here’s a glance at a few of the 28 case studies highlighted in the report:

  • In Chicago, the CREATE program aims to reduce congestion and improve air quality by streamlining four major rail lines. Chicago handles 30% of rail freight revenue and expects to see an 89% increase in rail traffic over the next 30 years. The program will result in $1.12 billion in health care savings from improved air quality and will generate economic activity valued at more than $525 million. The program expects to create 2,700 annual jobs.
  • In Southern California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach launched the Clean Air Action Plan in 2006, which cleans up all areas of port activity: ships, trucks, cargo handling equipment, locomotives — even tug boats. The plan has already taken 2,000 dirty diesel trucks off the road and has created more than 3,000 jobs at the Port of LA, alone.
  • In Seattle, BNSF Railway installed four electric wide-span, rail-mounted gantry cranes at the Seattle International Gateway (SIG) intermodal facility. The cranes’ wide footprints allow them to span three tracks, stack containers and load and unload both trucks and railcars. The cranes produce zero onsite emissions and have increased throughput by 30% at the facility.
  • In the East, the Port of Virginia’s Green Goat hybrid yard switcher, a rail locomotive that moves short distances within a rail yard, provides fuel savings between 40-60% and is predicted to reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions between 80-90% annually.
  • Along the Gulf, SeaBridge freight, a coastal shipping service between Port Manatee, Florida and Brownsville, Texas avoids an average of 1,386 miles of congested highways. Compared to trucking, one SeaBridge barge has the capacity to remove 400,000 truck highway miles on a single one-way voyage.

[i] Association of American Railroads, National Rail Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (Washington, DC: September 2007), figure 4.4, page 4-10.