Wisconsin Archives - Transportation For America

Connecting people to jobs and services week: What do destination access metrics look like in action?

Academics have long pointed to a metric called destination access—called by Transportation for America “access to jobs and services”—as a better decision guide than older, conventional measures that focus mainly on the speed of cars. But what does this new practice look like in real life, and where and how is it already being used?

A man loading a bike onto a bus in Arlington, VA. Photo from the Arlington Department of Environmental Services.

It’s “Connecting people to jobs and services week” here at Transportation for America, so Eric Sundquist, the director of our partner organization the State Smart Transportation Initiative, wrote this blog post explaining how measuring access actually works.

When we measure destination access, which takes into account distance of travel as well as speed, we can better assess how easily travelers can reach their desired destinations. And we can make predictions about how people will choose to travel. It’s long been a better theoretical way to measure success, but the data has been expensive and it’s largely remained the purview of academics.

Now destination access has broken out of the ivory tower.

Newly available “big data,” much of it collected for use by GPS navigation software and devices—think Apple or Google Maps—has made measuring destination access possible in practice.

Created by a 2014 bill that “revolutioniz[ed] the way transportation projects are selected,” according to then-Governor Terry McCauliffe, the Virginia DOT has been using destination access to help make investment decisions through three rounds of transportation project funding.

How does this new system work in Virginia? VDOT assesses a wide range of projects together—highways, transit, walking, biking and demand-management projects—based on how they improve access to jobs and other common destinations, such as shopping, schools, and restaurants. After calculating destination access, VDOT then divides by cost of the project to the state, so that small, rural projects can compete with massive urban ones. In essence VDOT scores projects on destination access per dollar of investment, and this has led to a major shift in which projects they fund each year, increasing the benefits for each dollar invested.

For example, Virginia recently scored a project near the small town of Hopewell that would connect two regional bike-walk trails using a shuttle bus across a highway bridge with minimal shoulders and no sidewalks. The project scored modestly on destination access, but because it would cost only $44,000—very little by transportation infrastructure standards—it ranked first in its district and ninth out of 433 projects statewide. This is the type of small but vital project that can lose out when state agencies are so heavily focused on simply improving vehicle speed and avoiding delay.

Because we can use all this data to assess destination access across auto, transit, walking, biking modes, we can also combine those scores to predict how changes to the built environment will affect outcomes, such as mode share. Will a project lead to more or less driving, transit ridership or active transportation? Using destination access helps us make these forecasts.

More examples of measuring access to jobs and services

Working with the State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI), for example, the City of Eau Claire, WI., recently used destination access to assess transit investment options, including bolstering the city’s downtown circulator, extending service to future development sites, and pairing those investments with strategic transit-oriented development (TOD). The analysis not only let Eau Claire decision-makers understand the relative benefits of different transit expansions—including which residents would be affected and how much their access to jobs and other destinations would increase—but also showed that TOD could provide considerably larger benefits, compared to transit investments alone. This information will inform the city’s new transit plan and its recently announced climate goals.

This new method can be used to evaluate how proposed transportation projects would impact access to jobs and services, but it can also help local leaders envision potential future scenarios as they make broader long-term plans for both transportation and land use.

In nearby La Crosse, WI, the city leaned on destination access metrics to estimate the effects of various development scenarios. If the city directed new development to three proposed sites near downtown, would it reduce the need for auto travel and boost transit ridership? The SSTI analysis found that the answer was yes, a result that city officials will employ going forward in transportation and land use decision-making.

Ten years ago, we never would have been able to orient federal transportation spending around the goal of improving access to jobs and services. The data and other resources just weren’t there yet. But now, as both states and localities across the country take giant steps to prove that it’s not only possible but a smarter way to choose where and how to invest in transportation, it’s time for Congress to respond by making this a priority.

Better together: All aboard for collaboration in the Midwest

Chicago is the busiest rail hub in the United States. Every day, nearly 500 freight and 760 passenger trains pass through the region. Many of those nearby cities connected via rail have benefited from developing the areas around their stations (read about a few in our 2013 report, The Little Cities That Could), and Chicago itself will soon see a large-scale renovation of its own Union Station. But these assets and local economies are seldom talked about or considered as a whole. That’s a mistake according to a recent OECD report that found that in order to grow, leaders in the Greater Chicagoland region — Northeast Illinois, Northwest Indiana, and Southeast Wisconsin — must better coordinate.

“Regional economic development is the way of the future” says Kelly O’Brien, director of the Alliance for Regional Development, which hosts a regular series of “quarterly conversations” to support improved collaboration among the region’s economic development interests. The group mirrors efforts of regional partnerships like those in Maryland and Virginia, where leaders have worked together on economic development initiatives, or Pennsylvania and Ohio, which collaborate on workforce development issues.

On June 10^th, we had the chance to join leaders from the greater Chicagoland region — including Illinois, Northwest Indiana, Southeast Wisconsin, and even Michigan — at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning for one of these conversations, this one focused on intercity rail & freight movement. Transportation for America Chair John Robert Smith joined the day to facilitate a panel about the economic value of passenger rail. Among the highlights, we heard that:

Beyond the commercial development opportunities promised by passenger rail investment, there are also huge potential benefits to be realized by other sectors of the economy; in total, the passenger rail manufacturing supply chain provides over 90,000 jobs in the Unites States, 60% of which are in the Midwest. (See the full report from the Environmental Law and Policy Center)

Leaders from across freight industries are counting on the unprecedented $1 billion dollar CREATE program to address one of the country’s biggest, most problematic freight rail bottlenecks that affects the movement of passengers and goods across the country.

Northwest Indiana is readying land to replace pockets of postindustrial decline with thriving transit-oriented development. The region is also planning for a new, commuter rail line extension of the state’s existing South Shore Line into Chicago. (See the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority website for more information)

New research from T4America member UIC Urban Transportation Center proves what many passenger rail advocates already know: leaders from across the industry agree that more investment is needed.

While O’Brien states that supporting collaboration “can feel like pushing a boulder up a hill” at times, the connections are being made; the day’s first panel featured leaders from the Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation who are working in lockstep to more efficiently own, maintain, and operate their equipment, and collaborating through the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.

Though a wide range of groups was represented in the meeting, leaders invoked the need for even more voices supporting these investments: such as developers, tourism leaders, the manufacturing community, and state legislatures.

“We are cooperating more than ever before, but we are still missing key players” said Tim Hoeffner, an MDOT leader who also chairs the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission. “we need to better harness the voices of local leaders,” he said.

At Transportation for America, amplifying the voices of local leaders is central to our mission. And we can’t do it without your help. For more information about getting involved in the Midwest or to recommend a local leader, contact Erin Evenhouse, Midwest Outreach Manager, at erin.evenhouse@t4america.org.

We can do more, together.

The current plan for the Midwest Regional Rail System. Photo Courtesy of the Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance

GOP Rep. Petri joins bill to raise the federal gas tax

The Highway Trust Fund, our nation’s key infrastructure funding source, has been teetering on the edge of insolvency for the last half decade, with legislators from both parties unable to secure a long term funding source.

Rather than continue to stand by and do nothing, retiring Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) has decided to join Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, as a co-sponsor on a bill to gradually raise our current gas tax 15 cents to a total of 33.3 cents. That would be the first increase since 1993 when Bill Clinton was president and gas cost a little more than a dollar. The measure also would also index the tax to inflation to stave off future shortfalls.

On Wednesday morning, the bipartisan pair will host an event on Capitol Hill, accompanied by President Reagan – or at least his words and image., Reagan “spoke eloquently on the need for Congress to raise the gas tax in 1982,” according to a joint statement from the two.

Representative Blumenauer quotes President Reagan on the need for an increase of the gas tax at a press event at the Capitol.

Representative Petri has long been a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the House side and has said for years now that Congress needs to address the constant deficiencies of the Highway Trust Fund.

“In the Highways and Transit subcommittee, we have held hearing after hearing where state transportation officials, mayors, governors, truckers, transit operators, economists, and experts in transportation policy have testified with unwavering support for a long-term, fully-funded surface transportation bill,” said Petri, after the last short term fix was applied to the Highway Trust Fund over the summer. “That should still be our goal.”

Blumenauer has been echoing similar sentiments since introducing a similar bill last December.

”Today, with inflation and increased fuel efficiency for vehicles, the average motorist is paying about half as much per mile as they did in 1993,” Blumenauer said in a statement at the time of the introduction. “It’s time for Congress to act. There’s a broad and persuasive coalition that stands ready to support Congress. We just need to give them something to support.”

Although the idea of raising the gas tax polls poorly, politicians of either party would seem to have little to fear from their constituents if they make a good case for ensuring sound highways and transit investments. Since 2012, 98 percent of state legislators in a variety of states including Wyoming, Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Hampshire who voted to approve an increase of the gas tax were re-elected in their next primary, our analysis shows.

When Senators Murphy and Corker introduced their bipartisan bill that would have raised the gas tax 12 cents over the next two years, Transportation for America’s director, James Corless, stated his approval with an urgency to find a long-term solution instead of short-term fixes.

“A return to stable funding will ensure that our states and communities can repair aging roads, bridges and transit systems and build the infrastructure we need for a growing economy. The alternative is to allow our transportation system to crumble along with an economy hobbled by crapshoot commutes and clogged freight corridors.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 2013, 20-plus states took up transportation funding: Here’s the final tally

Welcome to 2014! With a large number of state legislatures convening as the new year gets underway, it’s worth a look back at an important trend from 2013: States stepping forward to raise additional money for transportation. With federal funding remaining flat in 2012′s transportation bill (MAP-21) and after years of deferred action during the long recession, a large number of states, metro areas and local communities moved to supplement federal dollars with new revenues of their own.

In April, we reported that 19 states were looking at ways to increase their own funding for transportation. Some needed the funds just to make ends meet after years of flat or declining state revenues, while others also were looking for funds to match those available from MAP-21 new and updated loan and grant programs (like TIFIA or TIGER).

Here’s how they fared:

Key Successes

We covered Maryland’s ambitious plan on this blog, as well as Massachusetts.

Both of those states’ plans indexed the state gas tax to keep pace with inflation — something the federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993 — does not do. In Maryland, the state also added a sales tax on gasoline, while in Massachusetts, the package included an increase in cigarette taxes and certain business taxes. The good news was that in making the changes, both states recognized the importance of all modes of transportation and the revenues will fund important transit and road projects around the states.

In Virginia, Governor McDonnell began the debate with a proposal to abolish the per-gallon gasoline tax entirely and replace it with sales and wholesale taxes on fuel. That brought together legislators from both parties, who developed an innovative package of revenue increases to put transportation funding on a long-term, stable footing.

New legislation raised vehicle fees, along with local taxes in two of the states’ most heavily populated areas, Northern Virginia (near Washington, DC) and Hampton Roads (near Norfolk/Virginia Beach on the coast). Recognizing that businesses, residents, and visitors to Virginia depend on many types of transportation to move around the state, the new law directs funding to all modes of surface transportation, including transit, passenger rail, roads, and bridges. The package is projected to have more than $9.5 billion in economic impact in the state. As the Gov. McDonnell said in signing the bill: “This legislation will ensure that Virginia’s economy can grow in the years ahead, and that businesses will have the infrastructure they need to create the good-paying jobs Virginians deserve.”

Most recently, legislators in Pennsylvania reached agreement on a package of tax and fee changes that will raise $2.3 billion annually for the state’s transportation infrastructure – $1.65 billion for roads and bridges and $475 million for transit. The debate went down to the wire with agreement finally reached in a special legislative session just before Thanksgiving, allowing the governor to sign the bill on a cold day in late November.

AP photo by Nabil Mark – Gov. Tom Corbett, center, signs into law a bill that will provide $2.3 billion a year for improvements to Pennsylvania’s highways, bridges and mass-transit systems.

The PA legislation eliminates the retail tax on gasoline and a state cap on gas tax paid at the wholesale level and raises various vehicles and driver fees over the next five years. The new funding will help to advance projects like the rehabilitation of the structurally deficient Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh and of outdated equipment used by SEPTA.

Not all states that raised money recognized the value of investing across the board in all types of transportation to keep their economies moving. Ohio, Wyoming, and Vermont enacted tax increases intended for highway projects only. In Wisconsin, new bonding authority was enacted, with bond funds directed almost entirely to highways.

One positive outcome in Wisconsin: While the governor had proposed kicking transit out of the state transportation fund (similar to what the House of Representatives proposed in 2012), the legislature rejected that proposal and instead transferred general fund money into the fund (much as the federal government has done for its highway trust fund) to keep funding public transportation.

Try again next year!

Some states explicitly punted the issue to next year by creating commissions to report back to the legislature on transportation revenue options.

In Indiana, where a bill had been moving forward to allow the central Indiana region (which includes Indianapolis) to raise their own regional taxes to pay for transit, legislators instead commissioned a study on how to fund transit in the region. In November, the transit study commission voted in favor of allowing counties in the Indianapolis region to impose an income tax or business tax increase, if approved by a voter referendum, to fund regional transit. Reports like these help reinforce the notion — which we agree with — that regions should always have the ability, especially with the blessing of voters, to raise their own revenues to invest in regional transportation needs. We will definitely be keeping Indiana on our “watch list” for 2014.

Another state to watch in 2014 is Washington, where legislators negotiated on transportation funding through mid-December before calling it quits for the year. They promise to resume when the next legislative session begins in January. The current discussion is about increasing the state gas tax, with legislators debating items such as stormwater treatment, how to use the sales taxes collected from transportation projects, and funding for public transportation.

The need is urgent in Washington. Without any increase in state revenue, for example, the bus systems in the Seattle region are facing severe cuts in service that employers and employees depend on, along with fare increases.

A state we also hope will try again is Missouri, where a plan to raise $7.9 billion over 10 years through a penny sales tax passed both the Missouri House and Senate, but was then filibustered at the 11th hour when the Senate took up the package for a final vote. The fact that it was a sales tax was notable because in Missouri, as in many other states, while gas taxes are limited to only funding highway projects, a sales tax can be used for any mode of transportation, giving the state much more flexibility to invest.

Looking back

This movement we saw in 2013 is just the beginning. More and more states are increasingly looking for ways to bring more of their own dollars to the table, as well as making plans to invest in a range of transportation options. For a complete list see our state funding tracker.

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

Other states – and the federal government – need to take a page from their playbook and find a way to invest more money in transportation – it’s vital for our economy. One good place to start the discussion would be with our proposal to raise more revenue for transportation for the price of a weekly coffee and doughnut per commuter.