As we reported last week, today is the “Don’t X Out Public Transportation” day of action to highlight the crippling impacts of the proposed 35 percent cut to public transit. The events are being held in more than 20 cities in cooperation with the American Public Transportation Association and a number of key partners to let Congress know that deep cuts mean Americans losing their jobs or their ability to get to their jobs, as well as groceries and essential services.

These kind of cuts are the last thing Washington ought to be talking about in a fragile economy.

Supporters of today’s action are encouraged to wear red in support of public transit, and some agencies are going one step further — painting large red X’s on the the side of buses with routes threatened by cuts. Check out these photos of Xs being painted on buses belonging to the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Association below.

You can find more information about today’s events around the country at supporttransit.org. Looking for a rally near you? Go here to find the full list of cities hosting events.

At 11 a.m. eastern time, members of the media and other interested parties are invited to call into a telebriefing featuring APTA President William Miller; Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union; John Robert Smith, T4 America co-chair and president and CEO of Reconnecting America; and others.

Photos courtesy of the American Public Transportation Association.

“Passengers,” as the program was dubbed, aired on WAMU (D.C.’s NPR affiliate), a number of public radio stations in most major U.S. markets and nationwide on NPR World and NPR’s Sirius XM satellite, and interested listeners can also access the segments for free and download via iTunes and podcast. The four half-hour installments were written and produced for radio by David Freudberg of Humankind.

The series is inspired in its inclusion of a diversity of transportation voices — transit authority heads, labor, chambers of commerce, advocates and students who rely on public transportation services daily.

“You can look at almost any transportation project, and you can point to development that happened because of that,” said Natalie English, senior vice president of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, describing to Freudberg how smart investment in transit options can do more for economic growth in some cases than a traditional highway or road project.

Others spoke of how crucial access to transit was to their daily lives.

“I live check by check, day by day, and, you know, and I depend on the public transportation. I depend on this to get me to where I’m going,” a male passenger of Boston’s T system told Freudberg.

The four parts of the series are as follows:

• Part One looks at a Virginia man who accepted his county’s car-free challenge for one month; it also interviews both drivers about the price of gas and bus riders in low-income neighborhoods.
• Part Two looks at the convergence between the business community and environmentalists over the widespread benefits of public transportation — “Bankers and the Sierra Club on the same side,” as Freudberg put it.
• Part Three looks at the impact of public transit on climate change compared to the impact of a car. Transportation for America Director James Corless was interviewed for this segment, along with the president of AAA.
• And, Part Four examines where receipts from the federal gas tax end up, as well as weighing arguments for and against high-speed rail.

Access all four parts here.

Contrary to an undeniable divide in elite political opinion, the survey from Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication found that 71 percent of Americans believe global warming should be a priority, with 13 identifying it as a “very high” priority, 27 percent “high” and 31 percent “medium.” Notably, this figure included 50 percent of Republican respondents, 66 percent of independents and 88 percent of Democrats.

The survey also found broad consensus on how to tackle climate change, with transportation solutions among the answers with broadest support. Among all respondents, 80 favored more public transportation, 77 percent support installing bike lanes on city streets and 56 percent support reducing sprawl and targeting more development in city centers.

Consistent with the findings of Smart Growth America, the Rockefeller Foundation and others, many of these policies enjoyed support across party lines:

• Among Republicans, 74 percent support installing bike lanes, with 23 percent in strong support
• 80 percent of Republicans favor increasing the availability of public transportation, almost identical to the national average
• 79 percent of independents favored more public transportation, with 31 percent strongly in favor
• Republicans were about evenly split on supporting measures to reduce sprawl and target development in city and town centers, with 48 percent in favor and 52 percent opposed.

Although raising the gasoline tax remains relatively unpopular among all voter groups, 66 percent of respondents supported requiring utility companies to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, even if it ended up costing households an extra $100 per year. A comparable percentage of Republicans, Democrats and independents agreed.

You can read more about the survey at Streetsblog Capitol Hill, or view the full results here.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 14, 2011 — President Obama today unveiled a fiscal 2012 budget proposal that calls for investing $128 billion in transportation infrastructure as a first installment on a long-awaited six-year investment plan totaling $556 billion. James Corless, director of Transportation for America, issued this statement in response:

“The President’s proposed budget delivers on his recent promises to ensure we have the 21^st century infrastructure necessary to support a revitalized American economy. While we believe the President is right to pursue a front-loaded investment in this budget that will boost employment in everything from construction to manufacturing, we are most excited by the bold proposals to ensure that the money is spent wisely and accountably.

“The Administration’s visionary reforms recognize where we are at this moment in history: Having built the world’s best highway and bridge network, we have to focus on preserving those aging assets while we build the missing pieces of a modern system that allows people and goods to get where they’re going cheaply, conveniently and safely. The Administration is right then, to propose a “fix it first” policy that will ensure that transportation agencies stop siphoning off money intended to rehabilitate bridges and highways. Equally smart are proposals to reward innovation through competitive grants that emphasize greater efficiency, broader and more affordable options and reduced dependency on foreign oil.

“These and other proposed reforms are precisely in line with recent polls, including one released today by the Rockefeller Foundation, showing that the American people believe strongly that providing a modern, safe infrastructure is a primary role of our government, and that they consider it to be – more than any other issue — above partisan divisions. The Administration proposals also deliver on voters’ desire for greater accountability for maintaining what we’ve already built, and for giving local communities greater flexibility and more say in how they solve their transportation issues and build for the future.

“At the same time, the poll underscores the degree to which current House proposals – which would eliminate support for communities that want better public transportation and safer streets — are at odds with the desires of a majority of Americans. The task now is for the President and Congress to engage in the bipartisan problem-solving Americans expect in order to find ways to pay for the jobs-sustaining infrastructure they deserve.”

Anderson told Suarez and viewers that the absence of affordable and accessible transportation options is “not only an equity and fairness issue, it’s an economic issue.” He also said: “the fact that car ownership is so key to accessing opportunity right now is a reflection of the existing system that we have, that we’re not building a transportation system for everyone.”

Here is a clip from the discussion:

You can access the remainder of the program on Destination Casa Blanca’s website. The site also contains information about television listings.

Failure to keep up with regular maintenance and repair in many of our country’s public transportation systems due to tightened budgets is literally slowing us down, through longer commutes, unreliable service and reduced access, exacerbating the effects of a down economy and high unemployment.

This is part of what prompted Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to seek a report on the cost of bringing our nation’s transit systems into a state of good repair.

The Federal Transit Administration study reveals chronic underinvestment in the nation’s transit systems and estimates $77.7 billion is needed just to rehabilitate what we already have. Unfortunately, that figure is more of a floor than a ceiling. The $77.7 billion would simply modernize and repair existing transit systems, without even beginning to build the tracks or build the new projects urgently needed to keep up with burgeoning demand.

Sadly, we are nowhere near where we need to be.

Rather than matching the needed level of investment, public transit spending in 2008 clocked in at less than $13 billion. According to the FTA, “the Study’s findings — in particular the magnitude of the investment backlog — emphasize the need for a more comprehensive understanding of transit reinvestment needs.”

The New York Times echoed that theme in a recent story. The Times noted a recent incident on Maryland’s commuter rail system (MARC) in which 900 commuters on a train home to Maryland from Washington, D.C. were stuck near Union Station for two hours, with temperatures reaching as high as 110 degrees. One especially disgruntled rider ventured that air-conditioned jails in Georgia would be preferable to staying on the train.

Though important, this isn’t just about comfort. Millions of Americans, young and old, urban and rural, rely on transit system each day to get to work, school or other daily needs. Disruptions to these services are much more serious than a mere inconvenience. In tough times, we should be making it easier for people to go about their lives and get to work, but chronic underinvestment in transit is making these things harder instead.

One of the biggest contributors to incidents like those on the DC Metro is simply the age of the equipment. Every year, the price of buying new parts and repairing rail lines goes up, and every year the upgrades or repairs don’t happen, keeping the trains running becomes more expensive and difficult.

Despite this, the Times notes that “the federal government is unlikely to step in to help the strapped city, state and local transit agencies,” despite what AASHTO spokesman Tony Dorsey described as “the perfect storm” that is “causing people in the transportation industry to feel very concerned.”

The Times’ outlook aside, there is a plan in Congress to provide aid to struggling agencies hit hard by shrinking state and local budgets. T4 America has strongly encouraged Congress to pass the Public Transportation Preservation Act, which would provide $2 billion in emergency operating funds to help keep systems afloat during this crisis of state and local budgets, as the Times noted.

Whether this bill passes or not, Congress must keep the FTA’s sobering numbers in mind when moving to reauthorize the nation’s surface transportation bill. Some will surely ask whether we can afford these investments, but the question we should be asking is how we afford not to make them.

It seems like everything in Washington these days is politically charged — economic recovery, health care and Wall Street reform, to name a few. Unfortunately and often without good reason, transportation becomes one of them.

William Lind, a respected figure in right-wing circles, is adamant that public transportation shouldn’t be, explaining why in “Rail Against the Machine,” featured in this month’s American Conservative magazine — part of a special package in American Conservative on public transportation with contributions from a host of special authors.

Lind is the co-author with the late Paul Weyrich of a recent book called “Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation” and was featured in a Transportation for America online debate late last year. His argument is simple: there is nothing inherently conservative about favoring highways — and nothing un-conservative about alternatives to the automobile.

For starters, Lind points out, conservatives ride public transportation in large numbers. Among residents in Lake County, Illinois, a Republican enclave in suburban Chicago, 11 percent of those earning more than $75,000 per year use the METRA commuter train. They are using public transportation because they like and it meets their needs. Lind writes:

So why are conservatives using the public transportation we are told they oppose? Because being stuck in traffic isn’t fun, even if you are driving a BMW. On a commuter train or Light Rail line, you whiz past all those cars going nowhere at 50 or 60 miles per hour — reading, working on your laptop, or relaxing, instead of staring at some other guy’s bumper.

In addition to praising alternatives to driving, Lind also dismisses the oft-repeated myth that our preference for automobiles in this country is a free-market outcome. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he writes, pointing out that 100 years ago, Americans relied on a variety of systems, including intercity trains and streetcars, all of which were privately owned and free of government support.

But they were wiped out by massive government subsidies of highways. Today’s situation, where “drive or die” is the reality for most Americans, is a product of almost a century of government intervention in the transportation market.

No one, least of all Lind, is arguing that we should roll back the Interstate Highway system — still the envy of the world though we need to better maintain that investment. Many of the decisions made in the 1950s gave Americans a ticket to greater prosperity and quality of life. But Lind says we should stop pretending that all transit is subsidized, while roads and highways stand on their own as 100 percent paid for.

All transportation infrastructure requires some government support, so we ought to make sure we invest wisely and give people more options rather than less.

Lind’s case for public transportation is very pragmatic and results-oriented, but he appeals to conservatives on a philosophical level as well. Citing conservative thinker Russell Kirk, Lind calls upon prudence as a virtue, adding that “there is nothing prudent about leaving most people immobile should events beyond the pale cut off our oil supply, as happened in 1973 and 1979. …Prudence suggests the first goal of a conservative transportation policy would be to provide options, ways to get around without a car.”

Lind offers several prescriptions. First, he wants to see a National Defense Public Transportation Act that would “seek to recreate that lost network of trains and buses, bit by bit as we can afford to do so,” while giving counties a choice as to whether to participate. He also envisions a revival of urban streetcars and a greater focus on cost control in all new projects, so limited taxpayer dollars are protected and accountable.

The full collection of articles, including columns by our partner Christopher Leinberger, the president of the Congress for the New Urbanism John Norquist and others are available in the current print edition of the American Conservative or here as a pdf.

For more information on Lind’s book Moving Minds, click here.

A new bill that would provide $2 billion in emergency funding for public transportation agencies was introduced in the Senate today. (View official T4 statement here.)

For the last year or more, T4 America has been rallying support from our tens of thousands of individual supporters and 450+ partners from across the country to call on Congress to step in during this nationwide transit funding crisis brought on by this recession, threatening millions of riders and hundreds of agencies.

Today, led by a group of 7 Senators, Congress has taken a step forward. If you’re one of the thousands who called or emailed your representatives with this message, your efforts have paid off with this good news for public transportation, but the work is not finished yet.

The bill still needs lots of support to make it through the Senate in the coming weeks. Tell your senators: support emergency funding for transit systems!

The new bill — the Public Transportation Preservation Act of 2010 — was introduced today in the Senate by Senators Dodd (CT), Brown (OH), Durbin (IL), Gillibrand (NY) Lautenberg (NJ), Menendez (NJ), Reed (RI) and Schumer (NY). (Updated: The bill number is S. 3412.)

Specifically, it will:

…authorize $2 billion for transit agencies nationwide to help close funding gaps in operating costs.  Transit agencies can use these funds to reduce fare increases and restore services that were cut after January 2009 or to prevent future service cuts or fare increases through September 2011.  Agencies that have not increased rates or cut services and do not plan to do so may use the funds for infrastructure improvements.

It couldn’t come at a better time. Last year, Americans took more than 10.7 billion trips on transit, the highest level in over 50 years. Public transportation use has increased at nearly triple the growth rate of the US population.

If you’ve seen our interactive map of the Transit Funding Crisis, you know the situation: At the same time that public transit agencies are working so hard to serve growing ridership, they face shortfalls in state and local revenues. Transit agencies nationwide are being forced to cut service, raise fares, and lay off workers. Jobs and services are being eliminated for those in greatest need.

This bill will go a long way toward relieving the pain, but it’s up to us to make sure it gets passed. We can’t stand by while transit systems crash and burn.

Our lawmakers need to take a stand and say enough is enough: we can’t let our transit systems falter.

Transportation for America today hailed the introduction of emergency legislation to prevent disastrous service cuts and fare hikes that are threatening public transportation riders across America.

The Public Transportation Preservation Act would provide $2 billion in emergency assistance for operating expenses necessary to restore a major reduction in transit service and to hold off future fare increases due to decreased state or local funding that occurred on or after January 1, 2009. Funding would be distributed through existing formulas. The Act will help transit agencies avoid or minimize future service reduction and fare increases that are being contemplated through the end of FY 2011.

Director of Transportation for America, James Corless, released the following statement supporting the act:

“With demand for public transportation service at its highest level in over 50 years, Congress must act to protect Americans who rely on transit from service cuts and fare hikes that threaten their ability to reach jobs and daily necessities. This act will help to preserve an economically essential service with a one-time, emergency infusion that will help to save jobs and access to jobs.

“Senators Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Sherrod Brown of Ohio are to be commended for coming to the rescue of public transportation riders across the nation. The dire situation facing transit systems across the country – as they are forced to lay off workers, raise fares and cut service – highlights the critical need for Congress to pass the transportation authorization bill this year that would address America’s need for greater transportation options.”

UPDATED: Tell your Senator to support or sponsor this bill.

The Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance and Competitiveness released a new report this morning during a briefing at the Natural Resources Defense Council that evaluated the many U.S. job opportunities that can reduce carbon emissions in public transit buses. Jobs in and related to public transportation are some of the lowest hanging fruit in the push for green jobs, so what’s keeping the domestic manufacturing industry from ramping up?

The U.S. market for heavy-duty transit buses is small, currently delivering 5,000 to 5,500 buses per year. U.S.-based firms dominate the North American bus market, with an 88% share in total buses and a 51% share in heavy-duty transit buses. Under current U.S. transportation policy, which favors highway spending and de-emphasizes public transit, bus orders are small and sporadic; this makes it difficult for the bus industry to grow.

Non-comprehensive chart of the domestic supply chain for buses. From the Duke CGGC report, p.30

The report is well worth a read, but for a much simpler case study of what this means in real life, consider one piece of the complex supply chain for transit buses that we tend to take for granted: seats. On a crowded bus or train, you may not get the chance to sit in one, but when you do, you probably don’t think about the design or innovation that went into that seat. It probably didn’t occur to you that seats can add hundreds or thousands of pounds of weight that the bus needs energy to carry.

David McLaughlin, vice president of the American Seating Company, a U.S.-based manufacturer of seats for buses and railcars (among many other things), made it clear at this morning’s briefing that increased investment in transit would be good for business. But he also stressed that those benefits are not limited to American Seating alone. As a result of the stimulus bill from 2009, McLaughlin’s company calculated $2.9 million in new business, the bulk of which resulted from seat orders for buses and railcars ordered by transit agencies across the country with stimulus dollars.

“$2.9 million means 11 new jobs for us at American Seating,” he said. In another internal study, His company discovered that 1 job at American Seating sustained roughly 6 others in their immediate supply chain.

Take those two facts together and you begin to see the economic impact of the small public transit investment in the stimulus — and what could happen on a much larger scale. American Seating, just one manufacturer of one particular component that goes into transit vehicles, created the equivalent of 11 jobs through the stimulus. Those 11 jobs create or sustain 66 more at the company that supply them.

Stimulus spending will not be enough, however. Although the economic activity resulting from the stimulus was important, McLaughlin said his business needs investment that is reliable, consistent and predictable — like the funding that could result from a full six-year transportation bill. Stable funding sources will fuel the research and development that can cut seats weights even further and enable buses to use less energy.

“The stimulus package has been a good thing, but what we really need is sustained predictable investment, so we can make the investments we need to make to ensure our viability. This isn’t just a public issue, it’s a public-private issue.  …It’s jobs,” he said.

The message from all fronts this morning was consistent. To spur job creation through manufacturing cleaner transit buses, the industry needs reliable, predictable investment and government policies that encourage innovation. Increasing the available federal funding for new transit lines and rolling stock is one aspect. Ensuring operation of these new transit lines remains affordable is another. Both are needed. As the report says:

If federal, state and local policy were to shift to a clear, sustained commitment to public transit, the nation would have the manufacturing capability to meet the resulting increased demand for transit buses. However, the transit bus industry is unlikely to have significant market growth in the absence of several major changes: better management of public transit funds and improved coordination with manufacturing firms; significant, sustained public funding; and perhaps most important, a comprehensive transportation policy shift that encourages public transit use.

Or, in other words, give transit agencies money to buy new rolling stock — and the money to operate them — and you’ll be creating green jobs on Main Street all across America. Buy new hybrid buses for New York City or San Francisco to reduce emissions there, and support new jobs in towns like Grand Rapids, Michigan that need jobs more than anything.