Skip to main content

Federal transit funding delays cause real harm

USDOT has been slow-walking federal transit funding since the Trump administration took office and the U.S. House is finally undertaking an oversight hearing to hold them accountable. Here’s a look at one major way USDOT is misleading the public about their lack of progress and some of the impact it’s had on local communities.

Today at 10 a.m., the U.S. House is holding its first oversight hearing on the US Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) efforts to undermine federal transit funding. (Live stream available at the above link.) Since taking office, the administration has inexplicably delayed federal grants for major transit projects, become less responsive, helpful and timely in shepherding projects through the application process, and radically scaled back the amount of information it releases publicly. And the information USDOT does release regarding capital transit grants is often very misleading, designed to make it look like the agency is doing its job when it’s actually not.

Decrypting USDOT

To understand how USDOT is misleading the public it’s important to understand how these capital grant works.

Under previous administrations, USDOT would publish a list of projects it anticipated funding in the following year (it’s a multi-year grant process) and then Congress would fund the program with the requisite amount intended for those projects. As grant applications were tweaked and finalized, USDOT would allocate funding to particular projects before a final grant agreement was signed—which usually happened soon afterward—and money was officially out the door to the project.

Under the current administration, USDOT has stopped publishing a list of projects it anticipates funding next year because they’re ideologically opposed to funding any transit projects. But the transit capital program has bipartisan support and Congress has continued to appropriate funds for it—three times during this administration. Now USDOT—specifically the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within USDOT—”allocates” funding to projects, they put out a press release lauding their work, newspapers announce USDOT has funded a project (they haven’t), yet no money has changed hands. Getting an “allocation” today just means USDOT moved numbers around on internal spreadsheet, nothing more.

Communities experience real harm

The whole application process is designed to insulate the federal government from losses. Before signing a grant agreement everything has to be in order: local funding must be secured, land acquired, project design finalized, etc. But what happens when communities get their ducks in a row, have put out bids for construction, and then wait…and wait…and wait for a federal agency that doesn’t want to do its job? Materials don’t get less expensive with time (they get more expensive) and bids come with expiration dates; when they expire, the whole bidding process which can take multiple months has to be repeated. While dozens of projects are still waiting for federal funding, here is the impact on three different transit projects, each of which USDOT has “allocated” funds for but which have not received a grant agreement.

The Bay Area
The Transbay Core Capacity Project is a $3.5 billion package of improvements that will help purchase new rail cars for BART and increase capacity in the transbay tube that connects San Francisco and Oakland. According to Railway Age:

BART is ready to move the Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Project into the Engineering phase, and [BART General Manager Grace] Crunican said the agency cannot proceed without FTA funding. She said the project has been delayed by FTA for more than a year, and every year of delay will cost taxpayers an estimated $120 million. BART had been anticipating FTA approval for entry into the Engineering phase by late 2018.

FTA has recently “allocated” $300 million for the Transbay Core Capacity Project from 2018 funds—an unusually high amount—but this does not supply the agency with any funding. Annual grants usually top out at around $100 million (this is a multi-year grant), but FTA has broken with that practice, likely to avoid having to fund other transit projects with the other $200 million.

Los Angeles
The Purple Line Subway Extension, Phase III is the final extension of this subway line that is planned to be completed in time for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. It will connect the Veterans Administration Medical Center and UCLA (which will host the Olympic Village) to the rest of the Los Angeles rail system. According to an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the LA Metro was up against a clock last year with construction bids set to expire:

The construction bid expires Oct. 3 [2018]. If Metro doesn’t get the funding commitment by then, the agency will have to rebid the contract. That could delay the project by nearly two years and increase the cost by $200 million, Metro officials say.

LA Metro did not receive a construction agreement by October 3, but they did get what’s known as a Letter of No Prejudice (or LONP) just before the deadline that allowed them to begin construction using local funds (and with no guarantee of future federal funding). The project has since received two separate “allocation” of $100 million, one from FY 2018 funding and one from FY 2019 funding. While construction has begun, there is still no funding agreement in place.

Twin Cities
The Southwest Light Rail Extension will extend the Green Line—which connects downtown St. Paul & Minneapolis—from downtown Minneapolis to the southeast suburbs, connecting some major employment centers. After unexplained delays and approaching deadlines, the Star Tribune penned an editorial urging USDOT to act:

The Met Council pleaded for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) action before Sept. 30 [2018], when two key civil contractor bids were set to expire and while sufficient time remained in the current construction season for preliminary work to begin. Those pleas went unheeded, with no explanation. This week, Met Council officials asked bidders for a 45-day extension. Only the low bidder, Lunda/C.S. McCrossan at $799 million, agreed. That leaves Ames/Kraemer, which had bid $812 million, out of contention.

Due to federal delays, Minneapolis was left with only one bidder willing to build its light rail line. But USDOT still failed to act. With only days left before the bid expired—after the extension— Minneapolis received a Letter of No Prejudice and was able to begin construction. Like Los Angeles, there is still no grant agreement in place, which means zero guarantee of federal funding.

These are just three examples of how USDOT is harming communities and undermining their progress on the ground. While many others have experienced similar frustrations and unexplained delays, they are reluctant to speak out publicly for fear of drawing the administration’s ire and further jeopardizing their funding.

These unexpected, unexplained, and unnecessary delays from USDOT are inexcusable and it’s heartening that the U.S. House is holding an oversight hearing. Unfortunately, the hearing won’t feature agency heads from any of those three cities or any other city that has been measurably harmed by these delays. It will feature a representative from the American Public Transportation Association, which represents agencies that must work with the USDOT, a representative from a road builders’ association, and the director of the Kansas City Streetcar Authority, which has not experienced any delays from this administration (yet).

While we’re hopeful that members of Congress will ask probing questions and hold USDOT accountable, the witnesses and their prepared testimony do not inspire confidence.

Oregon’s Transportation Package – 5 Things to Know

The Oregon legislature has just introduced a transportation package that – in addition to funding highway maintenance and expansion – takes steps to significantly fund transit, safe routes to school and implements forward thinking strategies like congestion pricing and active transportation management.

Oregon’s Joint Committee on Transportation Preservation and Modernization Committee (JTPM) held an informational hearing on HB 2017 on Wednesday evening. The JTPM was formed last year with the expressed purpose of developing a transportation package for the 2017 legislative session, and has conducted a tour of state to gather input and convened many meetings to develop and flesh out the details of the package over the course of this past year.

The package has too many moving parts to describe in this post, but here are five notable elements to Oregon’s proposal:

1) Five sources of revenue
The proposal includes traditional sources like gas tax and registration fee increases, and not-so-traditional sources like a bike excise tax, employee payroll tax and congestion pricing. These sources are so diverse in part because of a strong interest from legislators in seeing different user groups have ‘skin in the game,’ and because Oregon’s constitutional restriction prevents motor-vehicle user fees from being used on transit, off-road paths, or non-highway freight infrastructure. Add in tolls and you get to six sources of revenue!

2) Significant funding for transit operations
The state of Oregon only supports 3% of transit operations in the state while nationally, states cover about 24% of transit operations funding. The 0.1% statewide payroll tax on employees would significantly change that, dedicating 85% of about $107 million to transit operations annually. This would bolster transit service in small towns and large cities across the state improving access to jobs and other services.

3) Freeway widening is not the only congestion solution offered
Like other recent state transportation funding packages, Oregon’s includes funding for freeway expansion – namely freeway projects addressing 3 bottlenecks in the Portland region. But an earlier presentation outlining the proposal acknowledges that we “cannot tax our way out of congestion” and “cannot build our way out of congestion relief.” The bill calls upon the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) to implement – where possible – pre-construction tolling, congestion pricing, “zip lanes” (we take this to mean high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes) and active traffic management. While the benefits of freeway widening are often lost to induced demand, congestion pricing can more effectively address congestion if coupled with investments in other traffic-reducing travel options like transit.

4) A “Regional Increment”
The main congestion challenges in Oregon are in the Portland metropolitan region. While business interests around the state are concerned about congestion in Portland since they move their goods through this port city and economic hub, it’s still a tough sell for the rest of the state to pay for big freeway projects in Portland. To solve this politically and financially, the package levies an additional “regional increment” on the Portland region with higher gas taxes, registration fees and title fees, and dedicates that funding to projects in the Portland region. This helps Portland fund its big projects and holds together political support from rural, more tax-averse parts of the state.

5) Significant discussion on accountability
Because of recent, expensive boondoggle transportation projects, legislators are anxious to show the public they can improve transparency and accountability in this bill. The proposal calls for giving the Oregon Transportation Commission greater power and capacity to oversee the Oregon Department of Transportation. It also calls for cost benefit analysis of future projects and communicating construction progress on an improved website.

We’ll be tracking this legislation as it develops, but this is already certainly a package that other state legislatures may want to keep an eye on.

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

Link to hearing page: here.

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

The hearing panelists were:

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

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

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

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

Comments from the panel

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of questions and comments from members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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