David Goldberg, Author at Transportation For America

Four senators introduce bill to help finance transit-oriented development

Building structured parking, public amenities and pedestrian-safe streets are part of the public infrastructure needed for successful economic development around transit.

Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have introduced an important bill to make it easier for communities to support economic development around transit stations.

For any community with a high-capacity transit line – subway, light rail, bus rapid transit – encouraging walkable development around the stations is a no-brainer. By attracting more potential riders, it makes the best use of the transit investment and helps to build the tax base.

Even more importantly, it helps to meet growing demand for homes and workplaces in neighborhoods with easy access to transit. And who is driving that demand? To a large degree it is the talented young workforce that every area is looking to recruit and retain. [See our poll with the Rockefeller Foundation] At the same time, a significant share of baby boomers is looking for similar things, as an American Planning Association poll showed this week.

Doing transit-oriented development right often means retrofitting streets so that they are safe and inviting for people on foot and provide good traffic flow, and building parking structures rather than surface lots, among other improvements. But it is the rare developer who has resources enough to finance the upfront costs of public infrastructure and utilities before the revenue from the finished development starts rolling in.

The Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Financing Act would help provide low-cost financing in the form of loans or loan guarantees under the highly successful TIFIA program, which was expanded under MAP-21. Eligible borrowers, whether a state or local government or public-private partnership, would have to demonstrate a reliable, dedicated revenue source to repay the loan needed for public infrastructure.

This bill would help to support communities in creating public-private partnerships that help to spur economic development, build the local tax base, improve neighborhoods and infrastructure and make the most of transit investments. Senators Schatz, Markey, Merkley and Gillibrand are to be commended for their vision in introducing the TOD Infrastructure Financing Act.

Survey: To recruit and keep millennials, give them walkable places with good transit and other options

Four in five millennials say they want to live in places where they have a variety of options to get to jobs, school or daily needs, according to a new survey of Americans age 18-34 in 10 major U.S. cities, released today by The Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America.

Three in four say it is likely they will live in a place where they do not need a car to get around. But a majority in all but the largest metros rate their own cities “fair” or “poor” in providing public transportation, and they want more options such as car share and bike share.

The survey focused on the “millennial generation” – those born between 1982 and 2003 – because it is the largest generation in history, and it is the age group that any metro area that hopes to be viable in the future has to attract and keep.

Now, one caveat is that the survey respondents are already living in cities, so some self-selection is involved. Interestingly, though, the aspirations hold true even in cities that don’t have great options at the moment. The survey covered three cities with mature transit systems: Chicago, San Francisco and New York; four cities where transit networks are growing: Minneapolis, Denver, Charlotte and Los Angeles; and three cities making plans to grow their systems: Nashville, Indianapolis and Tampa-St. Petersburg.

Millennials like to stay connected when they travel

More than half (54%) of millennials surveyed say they would consider moving to another city if it had more and better options for getting around, and 66 percent say that access to high quality transportation is one of the top three criteria in considering deciding where to live next.

Even in a city like Nashville – a rapidly growing region with limited travel options – a strong majority of current millennial residents agree they “would prefer to live in a place where most people have transportation options so they do not need to rely only on cars” versus “a place where most people rely on cars to get around” – 54 percent “strongly” and 19 percent “somewhat” in agreement. The trick for Nashville and its peers will be hanging onto to those residents while attracting other talented young people. While 64 percent in Nashville say they expect to live in walkable places where they don’t necessarily need a car, only 6 percent say they currently live in such a place.

“These findings confirm what we have heard from the business and elected leaders we work with across the country,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “The talented young workforce that every region is trying to recruit aspires to live in places where they can find walkable neighborhoods with convenient access to services, including public transportation. Providing those travel and living options will be the key to future economic success.”

There are lots of other interesting tibits in the survey. You can read the news release here or see the full, topline results here.

Too weak to be effective: U.S. DOT’s first proposed performance measure needs work

While the 2012 federal transportation law, MAP-21, was not the transformational milestone many of us hoped for, it did put in motion a first-ever framework for accountability and transparency, establishing 12 basic metrics by which to judge agencies’ performance. It was left to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to put flesh on the bones by adopting rules for how to apply those performance measures. The first evidence of how the DOT is handling that job is now out in the form of a proposed set of requirements for judging progress on safety. Unfortunately, the draft out for comment does not bode well.

I-540 Head on collision

There are several reasons the proposed rule falls short – some technical, some less so – but the fundamental problem is that it is too weak to be useful as a standard for accountability.

The rule would require states to set their own targets for reducing, on public roadways, (1) the number of fatalities, (2) the number of serious injuries, (3) the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled (VMT), and (4) the rate of serious injuries per vehicle mile traveled. These four measures were established in MAP-21; the state or MPO can develop additional measures if they choose.

Here are three key weaknesses in the DOT’s draft rule: (Read our full detailed analysis here – pdf)

States only need a 50 percent passing grade, meeting only half of the four measures required in law;
States can pass muster merely by showing little deviation from pre-existing trends; and,
States that miss their safety targets, however unlikely that is under this proposal, would be allowed an additional four years before they are required to implement any changes to improve their roadways’ safety.

There are many other issues around whether the rule adequately considers the safety of people on foot or bicycle – it doesn’t. Or differences among rural areas, small towns and large cities. (This post by the National Complete Streets Coalition examines these points and others in greater detail.)

This rule, if finalized as proposed, would allow the states that fail to meet the targets they set for themselves to avoid taking action to improve their outcomes. Further, the USDOT decision to require states to meet only two requirements gives short shrift to the idea of accountability.

As it stands, the federal incentives linked to performance measures, including achieving the nation’s goal of reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries, are modest (though we hope they will grow as accountability becomes a more central feature of the federal program). States that cannot meet their own safety targets and cannot escape the exceedingly lenient evaluation would be required to submit an implementation plan that identifies how they will attempt to improve safety. They also will face constraints on their use of funding from the Highway Safety Improvement Program until the DOT secretary determines they have made significant progress.

Several factors in the way the DOT is implementing performance measures would seem to telegraph to states a lack of urgency or seriousness around accountability. States aren’t asked to begin working on setting targets until all the other measures are settled, expected no earlier than 2015. They are considered successful if they fall within 70 percent of predicted estimates, meaning fatalities and injuries could go up considerably and still be considered acceptable. A lag in data means they will be basing success or failure on a snapshot from four years past – enough time for a student to enter high school and graduate. Rather than push themselves and pertinent agencies to provide better data, faster, the DOT seems to consider the status quo acceptable.

There is still time to push for a better first effort at performance measures and show the DOT that the public demands a more serious and exacting approach to accountability. The public comment period ends on June 9, 2014. Final rules for all performance measures will be enacted at the same time, likely no sooner than spring 2015.

We’ll be back in touch right here soon with information on how to comment on this rule, along with our proposed recommendations and a mechanism for sending those in, but until then, you can submit comments directly to Regulations.Gov

Full rule text in the federal register.

Our op-ed in The Hill today: Helping the feds help the locals to help the economy

The Hill newspaper ran a special section on transportation today and were kind enough to include an opinion piece from us, along with former U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).

We began the piece by noting that transportation is facing its own version of the “fiscal cliff” this fall, as the transportation trust fund begins to bleed red ink. (More on that, based on the latest Congressional Budget Office estimates, in the next post.) As we have said before, we think Congress needs to bite the bullet and supply the needed funds, but with a caveat:

If we are going to raise the necessary revenue — and we argue emphatically that we should — we have to be able to articulate a clear and compelling case that the investment will lead to improved long-term economic prosperity. At the same time we need to direct more of the funding and latitude to local communities, rewarding the most innovative projects at the level where voters can best be assured of accountability.

Secretary LaHood sounded a similar theme, connecting progress at the local and regional level to the nation’s economic health, and emphasizing the federal role.

Former U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood

What will it take to modernize America’s transportation infrastructure and keep us economically competitive? I believe that it’s going to take courage and vision: vision to devise a long-term strategic plan that is based on measurable economic results, and courage to make the hard choices necessary when it comes to paying the bill.

Governors and mayors have been watching the gridlock in Congress with growing alarm. … As a result, many of them have made the hard choice to raise revenue themselves, either through fuel taxes or sales taxes. The public has also endorsed many of these efforts — 91 percent of all ballot initiatives in this past November’s election passed. But don’t misunderstand — these local and statewide efforts should not replace the federal government’s responsibility here. …The only way to maintain and upgrade a well-functioning American infrastructure and transportation system is for federal leaders to show courage and have a vision for national priorities.

In his op-ed, Chairman Shuster emphasizes the role Congress and the federal transportation program, due to be reauthorized later this year, can play in preparing the country for the big shifts in technology and travel patterns that are under way:

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

One of the committee’s highest priorities in 2014 is a new surface transportation reauthorization that will help strengthen our national system of highways, bridges and transit. As we continue to develop this legislation, we are exploring the role technology can play in moving freight and people more efficiently, improving safety and maximizing our resources.

How we build and navigate the surface transportation system today is quickly evolving, thanks to technology. It affects everything from the way roads are constructed to how traffic is monitored and managed to how car-sharing services and smartphone apps complement the methods by which we get around.

Working together, we must continue to embrace technology and innovation while we look ahead to the future of our transportation and infrastructure. But we cannot forget that we have to begin planning for that future today.

For the last nine months or so we have been traveling the country talking to local leaders who are eager to make sure Congress don’t forget that need to plan, and to keep the needs of our centers of population and commerce in mind.

As we said in concluding our op-ed: “The mayors, chamber executives, civic leaders and major employers we have been talking to are ready to make the pitch to their own constituencies and provide backing for members of Congress willing to act on behalf of our current and future prosperity. Because the national economy is only as strong as the local economies that make it up, these leaders understand these needs better than anyone and articulate them clearly. The only question is whether Congress will follow their lead.”

SOTU followup: Does transportation offer a glimmer of bipartisan hope?

As we noted in our statement after the State of the Union address Tuesday night, it was good to hear the President again cite the need to steer new revenue toward “rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes”. He didn’t say much beyond that, of course, but given other developments in the background, we have reason to be somewhat encouraged.

140125121707-obama-sotu-2013-story-top

Though his transportation remarks were limited, what he did propose was a bit more concrete than past references to diverting billions saved from winding down various wars. This time, he called for making changes to corporate taxes – moves with at least some support in both parties – that could yield a temporary infusion for infrastructure investment.

It would be a welcome near-term boost, but as his transportation secretary has repeatedly pointed out, we need a long-term fix for the ongoing shortfall in our beleaguered transportation trust fund. The U.S. DOT will run out of money to reimburse states before the end of the fiscal year, with deep cuts likely in following years. Simply put, rising construction costs and falling gas tax revenues from an increasingly efficient vehicle fleet have us on course for a “transportation fiscal cliff”.

As the President surely knows, this bodes ill for much of the strategy he outlined for easing the burden for work-a-day Americans. It won’t do much good, for example, to train a low-wage worker for a job in the suburbs if he or she can’t get to it. Efforts to revive manufacturing will falter if producers can’t move their goods through bottlenecks on overburdened and deteriorating urban highways.

As the expiration of MAP-21 nears this fall, we are hoping the Administration will put forward a transportation bill that lines up with Obama’s economic strategy. But when it comes to raising the revenue to boost the trust fund to levels sufficient to repair and modernize our infrastructure, the President cannot go it alone.

The good news is he may not have to. In recent days, the chairs of two key infrastructure committees, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – representing both chambers and both parties – have sounded the call to save our transportation fund from insolvency and make smart investments for America’s future.

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

“This problem must be addressed in this Congress,” said Senator Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. “A strong transportation system is vital to ensuring our nation’s economic competitiveness, and this requires maintaining federal investments in our infrastructure.”

Rep. Shuster, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also has been bold and articulate on the need for a “strong federal role” in creating the infrastructure to sustain our economy and quality of life, and the need for local leaders to speak up for it. In opening a hearing this month on “Building the Foundation for Surface Transportation Reauthorization”, he said: “We can’t afford to be stuck in the past or we’ll be left behind. We should encourage our federal partners to think outside the box on how to address our transportation challenges [and] promote innovation.”

We couldn’t agree more, and we can’t imagine that his Democratic counterparts would disagree. We recognize that finding agreement on the revenue source will be a steep climb. We have suggested several possible sources. Perhaps tax reform offers another vehicle to find new revenue for transportation needs.

Meanwhile, “We need your help in educating members of Congress,” Chairman Shuster told the U.S. Conference of Mayors this month. Those members need to hear from elected, business and civic leaders from around the country that there is support – and a demand – for congressional action to provide the infrastructure funding our economy relies on. That’s our mission at T4America: to rally those voices across the country and bring them to their members of Congress. If you can help – either by speaking yourself or by reaching out to a community leader – please let us know!

Little has changed with the latest edition of the report card on US infrastructure

On the release today of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Report Card on America’s Infrastructure, Transportation for America’s Director James Corless released the following statement:

“Our country’s association of civil engineers continues to do the yeoman’s work of sounding the alarm on our country’s infrastructure — the roads, rails and waterways that we depend on to move our goods from place to place and get us where we need to go each day. But it’s a sad reality that little has changed since the last Report Card in 2009, with America’s grade climbing only slightly from a D to a D+. Has anything in Washington changed to drastically improve the condition of our roads, bridges and transit systems in the four years since? Last summer, Congress finally passed a replacement to the transportation bill that expired a few months after the last ASCE report card was issued — in 2009. Though a definite sign of progress in some areas, the new law provided no new dollars for transportation in the two years to come. The program dedicated to repairing our country’s 69,000 structurally deficient bridges was eliminated after making steady progress on reducing the backlog over the last 20 years.

With the federal gas tax bringing in less money every year, strong leadership from Congress is needed now more than ever. We must invest more in fixing our aging 20^th century infrastructure, but as the civil engineers rightly point out we also need to be much smarter about how we approach our 21^st century transportation needs. We applaud ASCE’s recommendations that focus on innovation, resilience, and strong regional infrastructure plans, and urge Congress to build on these principles as they begin crafting the next federal transportation bill.

Protect, don’t prosecute, pedestrians — Raquel Nelson seeking a new trial

The story of Raquel Nelson, the Atlanta mother charged with vehicular homicide when her son was killed while crossing a street with her, continues to make waves in the local and national media. It’s been a galvanizing story, as people across the country were shocked to see a grieving mother convicted and facing jail time for doing something as ordinary as crossing a street. As we said before, this story was easy to relate to, as most Americans either regularly drive on roads like Austell Road — wide, multi-lane high-speed thoroughfares that run through suburban or urbanizing areas — or have the experience of walking in places where your safety and convenience as a pedestrian is an afterthought or wholly ignored.

David Goldberg, T4 America communications director, penned a thoughtful op-ed on the Raquel Nelson story that ran in the Washington Post today.

The prosecution of this grieving mother was shocking. In truth, though, no one should be surprised that tragedies like this are happening every day across America: Transportation officials and local planners routinely create the very conditions that underlie these “accidents” and allow them to persist…

…This is a major issue in inner-ring suburbs across the country, places originally built as auto-only suburbia that now are home to many lower-income families who don’t have access to cars. Neither the public transportation system nor the highway designs work for those who live, work and walk in these areas. People are being punished and killed simply for being pedestrians. Our research shows that thousands of lives could be saved — and millions more lives improved — by retrofitting these dangerous roads, as many communities are trying to do.

In related news, Nelson has officially announced her intention to seek a new trial, which will begin October 25. She talked about her decision with Ann Curry on the Today Show in a second interview. While Nelson is concerned with clearing her own name, she knows that others face the same situation every day.

“It’s for myself, my children, single mothers, anybody who has to take public transportation and had to be in a scary situation like that,” she told Today.

We’re still gathering signatures to join with the others petitioning Gov. Nathan Deal and the Cobb County authorities to pardon her and clear her of the previous charges without having to go through another trial. Add your name and spread the word.

Watch the full video below: