Benito Pérez, Author at Transportation For America

Behind the scenes on the rise in pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries

Driver expectations, higher speeds resulting from less congestion, major gaps in infrastructure, and a systemic criminalization of pedestrian and cyclist traffic on the road have contributed to the alarming, record increases in the deaths of people struck and killed while walking or biking, according to researchers.

*Crash at Lincoln Park and Barbee in Lincoln Heights. Photo by Umberto Brayj via Flickr.*

Whether for recreation or simply to get from point A to point B, Americans have been walking and biking more, and thanks to COVID-19, this pattern has only intensified.

As more people walk and bike, we’ve also seen a historic increase in the numbers of people struck and injured or killed by vehicles while walking or biking. Researchers have been delving into this worrisome trend and the factors that may be contributing to this pattern, and at the same time, municipalities are rethinking their roadway safety or Vision Zero strategies.

Photo on left: An open street in Georgia. Photo by Joe Flood via Flickr.

Research out of the University of Toronto highlighted a worrisome trend of drivers failing to acknowledge cyclists or pedestrians, especially at turns and intersections. “The results were quite surprising,” said Professor Birsen Donmez. “We didn’t expect this level of attention failure, especially since we selected a group that are considered to be a low crash-risk age group…. Drivers need to be more cautious, making over-the-shoulder checks, and doing it more often…. The takeaway for pedestrians and cyclists: drivers aren’t seeing you.”

They go on to postulate that there is an increased intensity and diversity of demands for drivers’ attention, including signage, diverse modes of transport and their evolving technology, and the presence of more cyclists and pedestrians. (Others have noted that the increase in deaths was coupled with increases in speed overall during the first half of the pandemic as streets emptied out, showing the connection between speed and greater numbers of deaths.) This demand for attention is at odds with the complacency of drivers, many of whom are not accustomed to having to worry about pedestrians and cyclists, and now they’re struggling to adjust. Making matters worse, the pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure that could clue drivers into the need to make room on the road is inconsistent, making it harder (not easier) for drivers to recognize when they’re sharing the road.

The need for consistent pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure is a twofold problem. One, roadway design and transportation policy makes safety and convenience for cyclists and pedestrians secondary to the auto, and at times, normal cyclist and pedestrian behavior is deemed outright illegal, according to Peter Norton’s book Fighting Traffic: “In the early days of the automobile, it was drivers’ job to avoid you, not your job to avoid them…. But under the new model, streets became a place for cars — and as a pedestrian, it’s your fault if you get hit.”

This encourages false assumptions about what belongs and what doesn’t belong on our roadways; as if streets aren’t meant to be shared with other users. If drivers assume pedestrians and cyclists shouldn’t be in the road, they’re less likely to be on their guard.

Image on left: An anti-jaywalking poster created in 1937. From Wikimedia Commons.

Secondarily, according to research by J. M. Barajas‘, the existing engineering, education and enforcement approaches to Vision Zero do not address the root of the issue with pedestrian and cyclist traffic fatalities that are overrepresented by people of color. This disproportionate impact is the result of a failure to invest in safe bike and pedestrian accommodations in marginalized communities.

Simply adding bike lanes and sidewalks won’t be enough. Safety from crime is another issue of concern for people of color, who often opt to travel on higher visibility corridors, which is where bike lanes and sidewalks are rarely considered because of the impact on the traffic engineers’ sacred cow of vehicle speed. Instead, this necessary infrastructure is more commonly placed on low-volume roadways, which have less public visibility. And for those who do bike, they are subject to police harassment, as cops are more likely to stop Black cyclists than white cyclists.

Since the spike in traffic deaths during the pandemic, pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are getting more visibility. The way we respond to this issue matters. Will we continue to push for only more ineffectual traffic enforcement, which disproportionately harms people of color? Will states and localities continue to push education campaigns that do nothing to address the root causes of driver inattention? Will we finally address unsafe designs as a primary culprit? Under the infrastructure bill, we could easily turn up the dial on these failing approaches and claim progress, even as fatalities continue to worsen.

What pedestrians and cyclists really need isn’t more tickets for jaywalking or lectures about wearing reflective gear. They need infrastructure that consistently makes room for them, prioritizes their safety and comfort above vehicle speed, and that provides greater visibility for all road users when they do mix with traffic, so that when drivers need to share the road, it doesn’t come as a surprise.

From policy to action: Six things USDOT should do yesterday to maximize the potential of the infrastructure deal

Because of the shortcomings in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)’s actual policy, an enormous amount of pressure now rests on USDOT and Secretary Buttigieg to deliver on the administration’s promises. But the good news is that there are scores of actions that USDOT can take to deliver positive outcomes for equity, climate, safety, state of repair, and enhancing community connections.

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

After 200+ weeks of #InfrastructureWeek, Congress was sorely overdue to take action on surface transportation reauthorization since the FAST Act was fast expiring in 2021. The House took up the challenge by crafting and passing the bold five-year INVEST Act in July, which would have moved the needle in major ways. But the Senate failed to produce the same kind of transformative bill, instead playing the politics of “compromise” and “bipartisanship” in what would become the infrastructure deal as we know it (the IIJA).

With the conclusion of #InfrastructureWeek on Capitol Hill and Congress pivoting to other issues of national interest, the media spotlight on the US transportation program will quickly dim.

This is unfortunate, because in many ways, the real work on infrastructure is just beginning—especially for USDOT and the administration. Advocates and the media are failing to grasp that the first year of transportation funding from the IIJA is already flowing out to states and metro areas, supercharging project lists that were decided upon years ago in some cases. And states have made it clear that they plan to maximize the use of the flexibility that they have won from Congress to spend this money how they deem it in their interest.

Using this historic infusion of infrastructure funding to make meaningful progress towards equity, climate change, and fostering community economic opportunities is going to be an uphill battle, but that is what the Biden administration has promised. They certainly have the talent and the expertise to make it happen, but Secretary Buttigieg will need to exercise his authority and the flexibility of US transportation policy to realize these outcomes.

Over the next few weeks, we will unpack the details on a range of actions that could be taken administratively to further our three principles and national priorities of economic development, equity, and climate change mitigation. For now, here are six immediate and important actions that would make a big difference:

1. A new commitment to passenger rail needs equally committed leaders.

As the country begins a heavy investment in intercity passenger rail and Amtrak, its Board of Directors is made up of members whose terms have expired (other than Transportation Secretary Buttigieg and Amtrak CEO Flynn). It is time for the President to nominate a new and current Board to lead Amtrak through this unprecedented opportunity to create a world class passenger rail system and push Amtrak to deliver on a new customer driven service delivery mission.

2. Find other ways to prioritize safety.

In late October, Secretary Buttigieg cited the country’s unacceptable traffic death “crisis”:

We cannot and should not accept these fatalities as simply a part of everyday life in America. No one will accomplish this alone. It will take all levels of government, industries, advocates, engineers and communities across the country working together toward the day when family members no longer have to say good-bye to loved ones because of a traffic crash.
—Secretary Buttigieg

With a call to action on safety, the USDOT should bring more attention to the impact of roadway design on safety, including the removal of references to the disproven 40-year old study that claimed 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error and discouraging grantees and the press from using the term ‘accident’ as opposed to ‘crash.’ Furthermore, the USDOT can look to prioritize safety investments across all funding streams (more on that next).

3. Bake important priorities into the many competitive grant programs.

Use competitive grant programs to reward project sponsors that have made a dedicated commitment to safety, state of repair, climate, and equity and to focus the sponsors that have not on addressing those issues. For example, those states who set regressive safety targets could be restricted from getting funding for safety-oriented projects.

4. Require clearer data for the public on transportation emissions.

Track climate emissions per capita from transportation by state and publish results and trends online.

5. Consider the poor track record of transportation models.

Require major NEPA (environmental review) documents to include a report on the past accuracy of any transportation demand modeling used, as well as documenting the expected induced demand from projects.

6. Streamline the arduous process of applying for competitive grants.

The IIJA also establishes several new competitive grant programs. To ensure they are accessible to communities of all sizes and capacity, USDOT should create an easier, more automated process for receiving applications and benefit-cost analyses for all competitive grant programs.

How this historic bill gets implemented and how the hundreds of billions in new transportation spending is spent will determine how far we are able to move the needle on key goals. We will continue to unpack more ways that the administration, states, metros, and advocates can engage in the implementation of the IIJA to produce a transportation system that is safer, cleaner, and more effective at connecting people to jobs and opportunity.

After COVID, who’s driving the bus?

As schools have returned to in-person learning and employment centers come back to life, mobility is grinding to a halt with a slow return of bus operators, the result of market pressures and ill-timed disinvestments.

A common sight across communities in America is the classic yellow school bus ferrying children to and from school and the public transit bus, circulating people of all walks of life to jobs and services in their communities.

We see buses everywhere because of the thousands of bus operators who undergo rigorous training and certification to operate these oversized passenger vehicles safely and efficiently. The operator training is supported via a network of training operators, who keep abreast of the latest safety and operational standards from the federal government and vehicle manufacturers.

Communities are facing a lack of operators and bus trainers, due to a cascading slew of factors exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

bus driver wearing mask adjusts mirror — *Image from Flickr/MTA NYC*

Transit drivers under pressure

From the perspective of the transit bus operator, driving a bus lent itself to job security, community respect, and in many areas, union representation. Most importantly, driving transit was an inclusive industry for those historically marginalized from the labor market.

However, the glamor of the job has eroded significantly over time, with stagnant wages, more arduous hours, contentious riders, more complicated roadways to navigate, and more complicated vehicles to operate. The industry was already struggling to both train and retain skilled operators.

COVID-19 presented further challenges to an already strained transit workforce. With the onset of the pandemic, transit bus operators were on the frontlines, providing mobility to fellow frontline workers and subjecting themselves to regular COVID exposure risk (and some losing their lives to COVID, such as 136 NYC MTA operators in the early days of the pandemic). For some operators, that was too much risk to bear.

To add to these challenges, transit systems facing dire budgets with falling riderships made draconian cuts to service (eliminated routes, lowered frequencies, reduced reliability) and then struggled to pivot the operators, bus trainers, and mechanics that remained into other roles. As a result, transit operations scaled down quickly, without a plan to scale back up. This cut off transit-reliant people (seniors, youth, persons with disabilities, persons with limited financial resources) from jobs and services. But when the fiscal picture for transit agencies started to look better, scaling operations back up took more time than scaling down.

Hampton Roads Transit (HRT), operating in southeastern Virginia and serving over 22 million annual passengers, is no exception. A spokesperson told T4A that “HRT is currently operating a reduced service plan in order to maintain a level of reliable service. The pandemic has had a significant impact on HRT staffing, beginning with a dramatic decrease in attendance that when added to the shortage of operators resulted in HRT at one point being down 30% of bus operators needed to meet service.”

Empty driver's seat — *Image from Wikimedia Commons*

Unpredictable workloads for school bus drivers

Faced with similar challenges to those of transit bus operators, if not worse, school bus operators are opting out of shuttling children to school. With split schedules (AM and PM stints), school bus drivers are unable to work enough hours to qualify for benefits, despite working more than half of their day. With COVID-19 requiring virtual learning, many districts were unable to pivot operators to other roles in the interim, forcing these drivers to be furloughed for more than a year.

Now as schools reopen to in-person learning, many bus operators have decided not to return, choosing to pursue steadier opportunities. Others are less able to work because of falling ill or succumbing to COVID-19. This has placed school districts across the country in a pinch.

The story linked above notes that some school districts are asking—even paying—parents to drive their children to school, contributing to daily congestion and eroding air quality. Other districts have had to delay starting school to give themselves time to find, train, and license new drivers . Yet others have required the state to intervene and call in the National Guard to drive children to school. To add salt to the wound, in many cities, children are shuttled to school by transit buses, which as noted earlier, are already stretched thin.

What we need

This developing crisis will require considerable intervention by municipalities to stem the tide. It will involve revisiting bus operator working conditions, and strengthened policies and procedures to protect the bus driver from health hazards as well as unruly passengers.

Most importantly, municipalities will have to invest considerably to ensure that compensation for a bus operator is competitive and marketable alongside investment in training resources and the staffing involved to support not only bus operator training, but also the maintenance of bus fleets. Hampton Roads Transit’s re-staffing issues reflect many of these national trends. According to their internal figures, “the number of applications received dropped by 48%. To attract new operators HRT is currently offering $4,000 sign-on bonuses, Commercial Driver’s License training, and referral bonuses. HRT recently negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement, increasing the starting pay by 20% in order to be competitive locally.” But these increased incentives require increased funding.

Tom Klevan, the manager of multimodal planning for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, phrased the need for action well in an email to T4America:

“The bus operator shortage currently facing public transit providers across the country illustrates the growing and continuing need for both federal and state investment in multiple mobility options, as well as our nation’s road infrastructure. Further, we need to increase public understanding of the role that transit plays in the overall well-being of communities. The global COVID-19 pandemic has served to shine a bright light on the value of life-essential tasks—including operating and maintaining transit vehicles—as well as the fragile nature of our global and local economies if we collectively don’t take steps to focus resources both public and private on creating the conditions that promote equity.”

Lastly, municipalities and transit agencies will need to revisit protocol in addressing future resource strains. Those protocols need to prioritize not cutting transit service, training, and maintenance support, because as we’ve seen, those short-term solutions lead to steeper costs in the long run.

Federal transportation funding opportunities 101

There are ample opportunities for the infrastructure law to support good projects and better outcomes. These five in-depth, detailed guides explain the available federal programs for funding public transportation, passenger rail, Complete Streets and active transportation, and EV infrastructure.

We boiled down the funding opportunities within the federal transportation program, with a focus on how much flexibility there is for transit, intercity rail, Complete Streets and EV infrastructure. These more sophisticated guides are especially helpful for very engaged advocates or agencies who are looking for in-depth specifics about funding and program eligibilities.

There are currently five funding guides:

Public transportation operating
Public transportation capital
Passenger rail
Complete Streets / active transportation
EV infrastructure
Micromobility

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the IIJA, or 2021 infrastructure bill) is the law of the land, guiding all federal transportation policy and funding decisions through at least late 2026. On top of the infrastructure law’s $102 billion in competitive or discretionary grant programs, the established formula funding programs also have considerable but typically untapped flexibility for funding projects across the transportation infrastructure spectrum, such as the main source of highway funding going instead to certain transit projects.

View our guide to understanding the IIJA

More background:

In addition to the approved IIJA, the (stalled) 2021 budget reconciliation bill, the Build Back Better Act (BBBA), would bring additional major investment in sustainable and equitable transportation. While that bill is on hold for now, record investment is still on the way through the IIJA. ¹

While the bulk of the new IIJA funding will just advance the status quo, these bills, taken together, do better acknowledge the importance of climate change, equity, safety, and connecting communities.

Three ways reconciliation can restore funds taken from transit and equity

Nancy Pelosi speaking into a microphone with Chuck Schumer on her right, AFGE behind her

With the bipartisan infrastructure deal approved by the Senate, opportunities to shift long-term transportation policy will shift to the House and to program implementation. The opportunity in the House is through targeted investments via the budget reconciliation bill that will accompany the House infrastructure bill vote.

(UPDATE 8/18: Clarified details on the passage of the Affordable Care Act)

After a strong five-year reauthorization proposal was approved by the House, the Senate transformed their reauthorization offering into a larger bipartisan infrastructure deal, funding everything from broadband to water infrastructure, which passed the Senate last week. This deal, which was crafted and passed in the Senate with the White House’s backing, doubled down on maintaining the status quo in regards to transportation policy, focusing on highway construction and expansion without incorporating maintenance of roads and bridges as the priority, improving transportation safety, and better connecting communities.

Rep. Peter DeFazio criticized the deal, specifically citing the bill’s treatment of public transportation.

From Washington Post Live

Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly refused to approve the Senate’s deal, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act without the Senate first approving a sweeping budget reconciliation bill that focuses on strategic national investments across a broad spectrum of infrastructure concerns, including but not limited to agriculture, environment (air and water), education, first responders, and public health. The Senate granted her wish, passing a budget resolution, kicking off the reconciliation process, and this bill provides an opportunity to invest more in transit funding, including transit operations.

What is budget reconciliation?

As noted in the graphic below, the Senate budget resolution provides key directions to specific committees on both the House and Senate side on how to program the specific budget called for in the resolution. (Budget reconciliation is often used to pass more controversial or partisan legislation. For example, the final Affordable Care Act package resulted from the House passing the Senate’s healthcare bill and then amending it through the reconciliation process. However, reconciliation only happens once each year as part of the annual budget-making process.) The House will return next week, with respective committees deliberating how they will program and craft legislative text to the directives of the Senate’s budget resolution, before cobbling together the final reconciliation bill for passage in both chambers of Congress.

Diagram listing the steps of budget reconciliation — Image from Peter G. Peterson Foundation

As the respective committees in the House and Senate contemplate legislative text for the final reconciliation bill, there are key restrictions for what can be included. Unfortunately, introducing brand new policies or making major policy changes not connected directly to new funding are difficult if not impossible.

As the graphic illustrates, any legislative text in the final reconciliation must pertain to policy that has budgetary impacts and stays within the programming directions and funding limits of the budget resolution.

Table showing changes that are permitted and not permitted in budget reconciliation — Image from Twitter/ House Budget GOP

As it pertains to transportation, the resolution allocates $60 billion to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to program as they deem prudent, while also adding unspoken pressure not to revisit items called for in the IIJA. The resolution also calls for an additional $30 billion for respective Senate committees focused on surface transportation to program accordingly.

Within those constraints in place for this reconciliation process, T4America has outlined three key investments that need to be made to better connect communities and improve equity and climate outcomes.

1. Increasing public transportation funding levels by $10 billion

The original bipartisan infrastructure framework, agreed to and announced by the President and the Senator’s part of the negotiations in June, called for $49 billion for transit. As the final IIJA was set, transit was the only part of the plan that took a cut (of $10 billion) from that original proposal, down to $39 billion. Less money for transit means greater challenges for transit agencies, for keeping transit running, and making the necessary capital investments, including transit electrification. There is much more that can be done to improve transit, but advocating simply for restoring the agreed funding amount is an easy fix within the limits of the budget resolution.

2. Increasing funding for the reconnecting communities program by $12 billion

President Biden’s American Jobs Plan (AJP) contained approximately $24 billion for reconnecting communities (tearing down highways that separate marginalized communities, reintegrating community mobility and streetscapes). The Senate’s deal slashed that program down to just $1 billion. (The House’s INVEST Act allocated $20 billion.) By restoring at least some of this program’s funding, meaningful progress can be made to reconnect and reinvest in diverse communities across the United States.

3. Increasing funding for zero-emission vehicles and charging infrastructure by $7.5 billion

Currently, transportation is responsible for a significant portion of climate change-inducing emissions, but emerging technologies are making it possible for reliable zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). Meeting the moment with significant investments in ZEVs (especially medium and heavy duty vehicles such as transit, school bus, and municipal fleet vehicles) and their associated charging infrastructure will help drastically curb emissions. This funding would also involve investments in domestic manufacturing to help ramp up capacity and lower costs to deliver on ZEVs and their charging infrastructure.

While Congress is in recess and members are in their home districts, it is a great time for constituents to engage their members on these issues. Share these three simple, key investment priorities for reconciliation with your members of Congress, while explaining what these investments can mean in your local community in regards to jobs, equity, and climate change.

Equity and inclusion in transportation: a conversation starter with USDOT

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has been engaging in a conversation with the public and the industry on the topic of equity and inclusion in the federal transportation program. To that end, they have opened up a Request for Information thru July 22, 2021 for the public to chime in on how the USDOT can do a better job of incorporating and holding accountability of equity and inclusion in their work and investments.

Image Source: Street Lab via Creative Commons

When President Biden came into office in January, one of his first actions was to set the US Department of Transportation on a course to “assess whether, and to what extent, its programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved groups.” To that end, the USDOT released a request for information (RFI) this spring on the available or potential data and assessment tools that could assist in the evaluation.

Equity is a concept that cannot be layered onto the current state of the transportation practice. Practitioners across the spectrum of government (from local, regional, state, and federal) who implement the transportation program have viewed and interpreted equity and environmental justice as solely an additional step in the planning, implementation, and operation process. More often than not, any mention or measures of equity and environmental justice in the transportation planning process has been documented in a separate chapter, rather than incorporated throughout the process. As a result, the USDOT and transportation industry have made insignificant progress toward addressing equity and inclusion.

Equity can’t just be a box to check off on a form. Transportation for America wants to make sure USDOT incorporates a holistic approach, taking equity into account at all points in decision making.

Realizing true benefits equitably for all users of the transportation system will involve a fundamental adjustment to the state of the practice. From purpose and needs statements, scoping guidance, design measures and standards, project prioritization, to performance indicators, there needs to be a focus of people underpinning the transportation program. T4America wants to emphasize that none of these steps require authorization from Congress. They simply require the Department to update its own approach and directives.

We strongly encourage you to send a letter to the USDOT and share your response with us.

The deadline is this Thursday, July 22.

You can use T4America’s letter (here) to inform your letter.

If you want to dig into more technical details around how USDOT can incorporate equity into its mission, the appendix to T4A’s letter may also be useful.

Six months in—how has Biden done with transportation?

Image of President Joe Biden at a podium with the presidential seal on it at an outside press conference

While Congress controls the discussion on transportation reauthorization, President Biden’s team has a wealth of opportunity to make bold administrative changes to reform transportation policy. The President and Secretary Buttigieg continue to talk about the importance of transportation in building a stronger and more equitable economy, but they are still moving slowly six months in.

In November 2020, along with Smart Growth America, Transportation for America sent the incoming Biden administration a memo outlining executive actions and long-term legislation which we urged the new president to initiate, including a list of executive and administrative actions on transportation, many of which could be taken in the first 100 days. We also recapped Biden’s action on transportation within his first 100 days.

Six months in, however, there has been marginal movement from the Biden administration towards real actions in transportation since our last recap, with only actions towards opening a national conversation on equity in transportation in the last few weeks.

The Good: Steps Forward on Emissions, Roadway Design, and Equity

Image Source (Instagram.com/SecretaryPete)

In early June, the US Department of Transportation announced their spring regulatory agenda, which sets the direction for planned administrative actions by the department. Within that agenda, there were three key items of particular attention for Transportation for America:

GHG Emissions Performance Measure: Abandoned by the Trump Administration, the USDOT noted it plans to bring back the greenhouse gas (GHG) performance measure for state and metropolitan planning that was canceled by the Trump administration. This is a HUGE step forward towards climate change. This measure will require states and regions to think long and hard about their transportation investment choices and their implications on the environment and climate.

Revising the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: After an extended public comment period that closed in late May yielding thousands of public comments, plus garnering the attention of Congress within the reauthorization process on this topic, the leadership at USDOT has indicated they plan to take up revising the outdated, vehicle centric MUTCD. The Department must focus their efforts on making roadway design work for people, the diverse modes they take to move, and their safe movement through the transportation system. Too many people have died on America’s roadways, especially Black and brown people, for the sake of the “need” for vehicle speed. Enough is enough! Let’s make real changes in America’s transportation landscape to work for people.

National Conversation on Transportation Equity: On May 25, 2021, the USDOT opened up a request for information aimed at addressing inequity in transportation that closes on July 22nd. The questions they prepared are centered around methods and assessment tools, data considerations, and transportation workforce diversity. This is a great start to redress equity in the transportation program. Realizing benefits equitably for all users of the transportation system will involve a fundamental adjustment to the state of the practice. With purpose and needs statements, scoping guidance, design measures and standards, project prioritization, and performance indicators, there needs to be a focus of people underpinning the transportation program. None of these steps require authorization from Congress—they simply require USDOT to update its own approach and directives. We look forward to seeing the department’s next steps on formulating a Transportation Equity Plan from this information gathered.

To be clear, each of these three steps forward is positive movement. However, there is a lot left to be done to turn these steps into real actions that will make the transportation system more climate friendly, safe and equitable. We will be monitoring USDOT to see if they see this work through.

The Incomplete: Not Much Action on Transportation

While Congress continues to debate on the future direction of transportation via reauthorization, the Biden Administration isn’t held back from taking big, bold administrative actions. However, the past few months have just been talk without much action to back those speeches up. Our tracker still shows that the Administration is empowered to make big changes to policy that have huge ramifications to the direction and implementation of transportation in America.

Issue area	Department	Status	Action
Access to federal funds	USDOT		Simplify applications for discretionary grant programs (like the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program) by creating an online application and benefit-cost analysis (BCA) process so that small, rural and limited-capacity agencies can more easily access federal funds.
Climate change	USDOT	Started rulemaking	We only measure what we treasure. Re-establish the greenhouse gas (GHG) performance measure for transportation abandoned by the last administration, follow this up with annual state GHG rankings, and provide guidance for projecting GHG emissions at the project level.
Climate change	USDOT	Done	Repeal the June 29, 2018, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Dear Colleague to public transit agencies regarding the Capital Investment Grant program, specifically the treatment of federal loans as not part of the local match, inclusion of a geographic diversity factor in grant awards, and encouraging a low federal cost share.
Climate change	USDOT		Allow rural transit systems to receive funding from the Low and No Emission bus program.
Equity	USDOT		Identify infrastructure that creates barriers to mobility (such as highways or rail beds that divide a community). Then prioritize resources to address those barriers and the disparities they create (e.g., by removing infrastructure barriers or creating new connectivity).
Passenger rail	White House, USDOT		Review the Amtrak Board of Directors and assess the balance of the board with respect to support for and experience with vital long distance, state-supported, and Northeast Corridor routes, as well as civic and elected leaders from local communities actually served by the existing network.
Safety	USDOT		Revise the New Car Assessment Program to consider and prioritize the risk that increasingly larger automobile designs pose to pedestrians and cyclists and the driver’s ability to see pedestrians (particularly children and people using wheelchairs and other assistive devices.)
Safety	USDOT	Comment period extended	Reopen the comment period on the handbook of street engineering standards (the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or MUTCD) used by transportation agencies to design streets, and reframe and rewrite it to remove standards and guidance that lead to streets that are hostile to or dangerous for those outside of a vehicle.
Technical guidance	White House, HUD, USDOT, GSA		Re-activate the Location Affordability Portal created by DOT and HUD and establish a location efficiency and equitable development scoring criteria to be applied to decisions involving location of new federal facilities, particularly those that serve the public.
Update modeling to achieve desired outcomes	USDOT		Improve traffic projections used to justify projects by issuing guidance requiring the measurement of induced demand and a review of the accuracy of current travel demand models by comparing past projections with actual outcomes, reporting their findings, and updating the models when there are discrepancies.
Update modeling to achieve desired outcomes	USDOT		Push states and metro areas to stop assuming that time savings automatically accrue due to faster vehicle speeds by updating the guidance on the value of time and instead start considering actual projected time savings for a whole trip.

The Opportunity: Induced Demand

If there is one target area that the Administration can make a particularly big pivotal change in the transportation program in America, it is tackling head-on the concept of induced demand. The quick and short of induced demand boils down to the saying “If you build it, they will come.”. Time and again, planners and engineers pitch roadway widenings and new roadways to alleviate congestion and then are flabbergasted that traffic only got worse after said widenings and new roads opened. It doesn’t help that the USDOT has remained mum on the topic for years, with its last statement on the topic in 2003 in essence recognizing that induced demand does exist as a concept, but not to worry about it since it’s already accounted for in travel demand models.

The problem with that mentality is that travel demand models are just tools used to better understand our transportation system, but are not infallible (think garbage in, garbage out with data for travel demand models). Travel demand models have limited, rudimentary assumptions for induced demand at best incorporated within them, as the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, why is USDOT valuing benefits of roadway expansion projects (like value of time) when such benefits (1 can’t be easily measured, and (2 deteriorate so much faster than advertised?

California has begun accounting for induced demand in transportation planning, but that’s pretty much the extent of induced demand in transportation planning in the United States. USDOT needs to step in and provide leadership at a national scale. This has ramifications on the transportation agenda and influencing climate change, roadway safety, placemaking, and multimodal investment strategies. The House INVEST Act and the Senate’s Highway title both recognize the need to account for induced demand in transportation planning. Now it’s high time for the USDOT to step up and provide the necessary leadership and guidance to states, regions, and localities on truly tackling induced demand.

Bipartisan infrastructure deal update: What we need to see

With Capitol Hill abuzz about transportation infrastructure, Transportation for America wants to remind Congress of key policies that must be incorporated into a bipartisan infrastructure bill (as well as a final transportation reauthorization bill.)

(UPDATE 7/15: Senate info added and call script below, post clarified to focus on bipartisan deal.)

Transportation has been the main topic on Capitol Hill in recent weeks with the recently passed House INVEST Act, a deal struck between a bipartisan group of senators and the President, and momentum building for transit operating support legislation in the House and Senate. Over in the Senate, there’s a mediocre highway title and a pretty good passenger rail and safety title. (While the transit title is still missing, we’re hoping for something soon.)

Also in the mix is the standalone bipartisan infrastructure framework. The Senate plans to consider the legislative language of that bipartisan compromise deal next week (the week of July 19th), to pair policies with those basic, top-line funding numbers released a few weeks ago. That framework is coming into focus with the understanding that its funding amounts are new, additional money that adds additional dollars to the current FAST Act authorized amounts.

Process-wise, this deal is unlikely to go through the traditional conferencing process where the House and Senate negotiate the bill through committee conferences. This means Senate and House leaders are likely to produce a bill by negotiating bill text before a bill is introduced and passed in either chamber and then simply bring that final bill to the Senate floor for a vote and then the House floor for a vote.

A “compromise” can’t mean settling for the broken status quo

Senators from just 22 states have an outsize role in producing the final product. If you live in one of these states listed below, call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your Senator’s office? It’s surprisingly easy and will take just five minutes. Ask to speak to anyone working on the infrastructure deal. Here’s a short script you can use when you get to leave your message:

“I live in [STATE] and I’m calling about the infrastructure deal. I’m glad that we’re investing in infrastructure, but we have to do it right, and this potential deal must do four key things.
First, states are still spending money on new roads we can’t afford to maintain. This deal must prioritize repair with our tax dollars first. Second, we need to invest in transit like we did with highways in the 1950s and 60s to give more people more options for getting around. Third, we need to address the deep inequities in our communities. The House transportation proposal included significant money to tear down highways that destroyed neighborhoods and focus on healing divided communities. That’s the kind of thinking we need in this deal. Lastly, the deal has to prioritize safety for all people on our streets. The ways we currently design and build streets prioritize vehicle speed over the safety of people, and that’s one reason we’re seeing record levels of people being killed on our streets.
That’s all. Thank you for your time.”

Key Senators

ALASKA
Murkowski

ARIZONA
Sinema
Kelly

COLORADO
Hickenlooper

DELAWARE
Carper
Coons

INDIANA
Young

KANSAS
Moran

LOUISIANA
Cassidy

MAINE
Collins
King

MISSISSIPPI
Wicker

MONTANA
Tester

NORTH CAROLINA
Tillis
Burr

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Hassan
Shaheen

NEVADA
Rosen

NEW YORK
Schumer

OHIO
Brown
Portman

PENNSYLVANIA
Toomey

SOUTH CAROLINA
Graham

SOUTH DAKOTA
Rounds

UTAH
Romney

VIRGINIA
Warner

WASHINGTON
Cantwell

WEST VIRGINIA
Capito
Manchin

Here are more details on the key policy priorities that MUST be incorporated into any bill that invests in transportation infrastructure:

Accountability to fix our roads and bridges, not just rhetoric

The administration has claimed that the money for highways in the bipartisan proposal is all about maintenance and repair. We need to see more than rhetoric.

There is a huge maintenance backlog on our roads, bridges, and transit infrastructure, and we only have so much money we can invest. The priority must be on first addressing the maintenance backlog. Additionally, for any new proposed transportation capacity, a maintenance plan needs to be part of the equation before adding more infrastructure into the mix with no plan for how to maintain it.

The House transportation committee supported this concept unanimously in 2020 and it was incorporated into the INVEST Act a few weeks ago as well. The Senate’s highway proposal failed completely on this count and as of now, there is no hard and fast requirement in the bipartisan deal to prioritize repair. Failing to include such a provision would be a colossal mistake.

Highway-style commitment to transit

For every dollar of transportation investment, only twenty cents goes towards transit (and the rest towards highways). This is a huge imbalance between a mode of transportation focused on vehicle movement and speed and another focused on moving people, providing equitable access to mobility, and connecting communities to opportunities. It’s time to focus transportation investment on people and the environment first.

The transportation reauthorization bill should increase transit funding to the level of highways and fund transit operations. Providing operating support for transit agencies would allow them to increase frequency and expand service to efficiently move more riders, which will also have immediate and lasting impacts on climate change. In fact, providing people more options to get around without a car (in addition to electrifying the fleet) is an essential component of ratcheting down greenhouse gas emissions. It is also a strategy that will give everyone improved access to jobs and services and better health outcomes—especially for low-income households and communities of color. The Stronger Communities through Better Transit Act in the House works to help bridge the transit parity gap with highways.

Address inequities in our communities

Transportation is a public good that provides people and goods with mobility and accessibility between and within communities. However, transportation public works projects—especially our national highway system—have historically torn through established communities, specifically targeting marginalized communities. It’s high time to redress those wrongs in the federal transportation program by providing funding to remove highway infrastructure that divides communities while mitigating the displacement of marginalized communities, providing people with equitable access to jobs and services, and, giving local communities control to guide the process (versus being dictated by their state department of transportation).

The Southeast/Southwest freeway in Washington, DC under construction in 1968, which plowed through homes and cut off southwestern and southeastern DC neighborhoods from downtown and the Mall. Photo by DDOT on Flickr.

Specifically, the final transportation reauthorization bill needs to include a competitive grant program, akin to the INVEST Act’s $3 Billion Reconnecting Neighborhoods program, aimed at not only capital and planning costs for eligible communities to redesign or deconstruct divisive infrastructure, but enabling the creation of land trusts to avoid community displacement, empowering local decision making and implementation, and updating the transportation planning process to be cognizant of holistic multimodal transportation impacts for all users.

Design and invest in safety for all users

You would think reduced driving trends in 2020 due to COVID-19 would have caused a drop in traffic fatalities. Unfortunately the opposite was true—fatalities were up everywhere, reaching historic highs.

From NHTSA’s Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2020 report, available here

Traffic deaths increased overall, with a disproportionate number of fatalities impacting pedestrians, cyclists, and marginalized populations. The trend is not new, and is only intensifying over time, and it is evidence of how our existing methods of designing and building streets are inherently unsafe and prioritize a need for vehicle speed over all other users. The final transportation reauthorization bill needs to fundamentally change our design standards to emphasize people movement across all modes.

It furthermore needs to require states and metropolitan areas to target their investments and document performance on reducing fatalities on their roadways instead of continued lip service and wasted tax dollars only perpetuating more fatalities.

Drafters of the final bill should look to the various examples from the INVEST Act that tackle safety and design of the transportation network, from the regulatory framework in reimagining the MUTCD, accountability measures that ensure transportation investments do indeed reduce traffic fatalities for all users, and competitive grant programs for local communities to plan, design and implement Complete Streets and Vision Zero plans.

The bipartisan infrastructure deal: What we know and don’t know

*_{The infrastructure deal could end up spending money just like our current transportation program does — it’s unclear. Graphic from Repair Priorities}*

In the midst of debates over a new long-term federal transportation law, there’s been nonstop coverage of a potential bipartisan deal on new infrastructure investment that has the White House’s backing, but much of the reporting raises more questions than it answers. What do we know about the potential deal, and what questions does T4America have?

Capitol Hill has been abuzz in recent weeks about transportation reauthorization, whether the Senate’s dud of a highway title, the House’s much better all-in-one comprehensive proposal (The INVEST Act), or the Senate Commerce Committee’s very good rail and transportation safety title—though we’re still waiting to see the Senate’s transit proposal from the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

With those competing proposals to replace the FAST Act (expiring in September) in the background, a bipartisan group of 21 senators have been hammering out a standalone infrastructure package that can get the President’s endorsement and potentially pass both chambers of Congress. Just last Thursday (6/24), the bipartisan group of senators met with and secured President Biden’s endorsement of their broad deal on infrastructure. The deal’s details are still emerging and making political waves on both sides of the aisle, but here is what we know (not much), don’t know (quite a bit), and really want to know.

What we know

The infrastructure deal is a $1.2 trillion framework that would make historic investments in clean transportation, power, and water infrastructure; universal broadband infrastructure; and climate resiliency. The framework highlights proposed funding amounts and how to pay for such a transformational framework—the latter of which has received ample coverage from the Hill media at the expense of more substantial reporting on the actual real-world impacts of the deal, much to our consternation:

People: What's in the deal? Will states be required to fix all the broken stuff first? What policies will guide the spending? What does this mean for transportation in my state?

Media: Here's our savvy behind the scenes look at the political implications, and who "won" the deal pic.twitter.com/5akDv16I4P
— Transportation for America (@T4America) June 25, 2021

One important note is that not all of this deal’s funding is new—the $1.2 trillion number also presupposes the passage of the Senate’s $303+ billion, five-year transportation bill, which we believe is largely a lackluster continuation of the badly out-of-date status quo.

What we don’t know

There’s a lot more that we don’t know about what’s in this deal, than what we do know.

The framework is very light on specific details as to precisely how these funds would be spent and what measurable goals they intend to achieve. Is this funding framework intended to put money into existing programs and existing transportation policy? Something proposed by the Senate and/or House? Or something else entirely? After T4America was asked numerous times by the media last week if this bill has “enough” funding in it, there’s frankly just not enough information on “how” the money will be spent in order to make that call.

Or as T4America Director Beth Osborne said in this New York Times’ piece about the deal:

“You can spend a trillion dollars in highways and not spend a dime on repair. So seeing something titled ‘Highways’ with a number by it doesn’t tell me what will be repaired so I can’t answer whether this is enough,”

The bottom line here is, what are we paying for? Transportation for America believes strongly that if we are buying something, we want to know WHAT we’re buying before we decide how much *whatever it is* will cost.

What we want to know

Will this bipartisan infrastructure framework move the needle on key issues that both sides of the aisle believe strongly about, or are they both giving up their core priorities just to get a “bipartisan” deal done? Will this framework shift the focus and paradigm in the nation’s transportation program towards addressing climate change plus equity and inclusion? Will this framework finally prioritize maintaining our existing infrastructure before expanding it, or will it just encourage yet further expansions to a dangerously growing maintenance backlog? Does the framework refocus the transportation program to serve people over vehicles, with special attention to improving our transportation safety and connecting people to jobs and communities?

Stay tuned to forthcoming developments on this potential nfrastructure deal as news becomes more clear.