Yesterday, our Director Beth Osborne led a webinar that provided a high-level overview of our Reauthorization 101 resource and analysis of Trump’s recent executive orders and memos. Here are the top three takeaways from the conversation with over 400 attendees.
1. Many are still confused as to what the administration is trying to accomplish
During the webinar, multiple attendees questioned the purpose of these speedy memos and executive orders. These are largely unprecedented actions and are difficult to calculate since there seems to be much back and forth with legality push backs (even internal push backs with Congress). Much of these actions are difficult to predict and it’s unknown if they are even capable of being implemented. One attendee pointed out how these EO’s could possibly clash with foundational legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. Ultimately, only time can tell and there are multiple variables at play that can reverse or accelerate these actions.
2. Everyone wants to know what they can do during this chaos
As advocates and transportation enthusiasts, attendees questioned what could be done during these times of uncertainty. At this point of time, the most impactful action is to let respective Congressional representatives know about the weight of these issues. Identify your representatives and call their office to explain what projects could be at risk in your community and what those projects bring to enhance life. Emails are another option to inform offices of the possible impact these memos can have on districts and states. DC offices are not the only option to contact, state legislators and state DOTs are also liaisons to contact and escalate how these actions could harm cities.
3. Who is at risk?
A large theme from the webinar was wondering whose communities are at risk of losing out on their obligated funding. T4A wants to equip our partners, advocates, and communities with all the right information and resources. Check out our analysis on funding that is at risk, broken down by state, county, and congressional districts. Be informed, know what is at risk and escalate to your legislators!
Advancing equitable transit-oriented development requires all hands at the community level, but leadership at the state and federal level can also help propel change.
Public transportation and housing work in tandem. People want to live in walkable areas that are close to frequent transit stations to move around quickly. Equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) helps meet this desire by maximizing the amount of residential, business and leisure spaces within walking distance of public transportation.
Locating public transit near everyday destinations promotes ridership and makes it easier for people to travel without needing a private vehicle. It’s a vital component to establishing well-connected communities and promoting economic growth. However, it’s difficult to build any form of transit within one mile of residential spaces.
On June 26th, 2024 the Future of Transportation Caucus hosted a congressional briefing focused on equitable transit-oriented development. Here are a few of the barriers to ETOD that came up during the briefing.
Local legislation can restrict development
Principal Research Associate from the Urban Institute, Yonah Freemark explained during the briefing that many localities have land use policies that restrict dense and mixed use buildings near transit.
Additionally, zoning laws in many cities have been stagnant in updating their codes. Planning Manager for the City of Columbus, Alex Saursmith, highlighted this point with his own city, where the zoning code has not been updated in 70 years. Currently, only 6,000 housing units can be constructed every 10 years, despite Columbus being one of the fastest growing cities in the country.
ETOD is also more financially effective than supporting continued road-building by prioritizing development density. It better maintains and maximizes the benefits of existing infrastructure. As LOCUS Chair Alecia Hill explained, state legislators should have an economic financial incentive to promote equitable transit-oriented development. When a lack of housing supply coupled with a lack of transportation options drives up household costs, residents are the ones who pay the price.
Transportation costs are the second largest expense category, behind housing, for most households. When households are already severely economically constrained, the costs of housing and transportation can be particularly difficult to meet. Renters that are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened can spend greater than 30 or 50 percent, respectively, of their gross income on housing costs, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics found that households with income lower than $25,000 who own at least one vehicle spent 38 percent of their after-tax income on transportation in 2022.
Community voices are key
Community input is a foundational factor to rally support for more housing and transit. It’s important for citizens to have an opportunity to provide input early and see how their concerns will be addressed.
Sometimes, residents oppose new housing development for a variety of reasons, ranging from a fear of losing a community’s identity to a fear of increased traffic or reduced property values. Practitioners and legislators should listen and respond to these concerns. For example, they could point to research like this study from Livable Cities Lab which showed that some property values increased when more housing was introduced. In addition, legislators working to adopt new zoning regulations would be wise to find their local allies and enlist their help in developing community support. Explaining how new housing development relates to the community’s values and goals can further strengthen the case for change.
As Saursmith explained during the briefing, areas that have seen high population growth are a major driving force to zoning reform, especially when those areas are economically disadvantaged. These places are in desperate need of more housing, especially mixed-use residentials within walking distance to transit. He notes that with noticeable population growth, innate political pressure grows to update local amendments that have become obsolete. Generally, political pressure on leaders is the start to policy-making change.
Labor perspectives are also vital to promoting ETOD, especially within the realm of unions. Executive Director of Good Jobs First, Greg LeRoy, explained that some unions have begun to embrace urban density, arguing that promoting density is not only beneficial for the environment, public health, and economic growth, but also innately pro-union and pro-jobs.
More equitable, better connected communities
Updating zoning laws requires having local city council members and state leaders actively and loudly call for reform. Calling local representatives and campaigning for leadership that will advocate for updated zoning laws is part of the solution to allow for more housing. The other side of the issue to address focuses on the grassroots level. Tackling discourse in online spaces, attending city council meetings in promotion of more housing near transit, or canvassing on referendums are all opportunities to promote ETOD.
Even federal leaders like members in the Future of Transportation Caucus make waves to address housing and transit, helping to propel the conversation forward. In 2020, Representative Jesús Chuy García introduced a bill to promote housing near transit and establish an office under DOT specifically for ETOD. These avenues all provide a chance to showcase the numerous economic, public health, and environmental benefits of constructing housing near transit.
On May 9, the chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Representative Sam Graves, and the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Representative Rick Crawford highlighted recent increases in crime reports according to FTA-tracked data. The period of time evaluated (2020-2022) represents some of the worst times for transit as agencies struggled to deliver service, ridership fell, and travel behavior changed across the country.
Transit safety is foundational to encouraging communities to utilize this public resource and enjoy its numerous benefits, including economic, environmental, and public health benefits. It is essential that federal investments protect taxpayers as they travel. Unfortunately, Representatives Graves and Crawford failed to take note of the need for safety enhancements for all modes of transportation, including modes that are far more dangerous than taking the bus.
From 2020-2022, during that same period highlighted by Graves and Crawford, fatalities on our roadways exploded. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, projected roadway fatalities increased from 39,007 to 42,795. According to Smart Growth America’s Dangerous by Design report, the number of people hit and killed while walking grew to 7,522 in 2022, marking a 40-year high.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, passenger car occupants are the primary victims in highway fatalities, totaling more than 10,000 deaths each year since 2010. By contrast, non-rail public transit occupants (like bus riders) accounted for less than 100 highway fatalities each year. Other types of public transit, like subways, accounted for less than 300 transportation-related fatalities each year. (To fully understand these numbers, it’s important to note that highway fatalities, including non-rail public transit, counted only direct fatalities like deaths that occur due to a collision. Other types of public transit included incident-related fatalities, and so these deaths are likely overstated in comparison.)
Whether we’re driving, biking, walking, or taking public transit, we should be able to travel safely. But when representatives like Crawford derail the conversation to “shine a light” on transit security alone, it unnecessarily discourages and scares individuals from riding public transportation, despite it being statistically safer than operating a private vehicle.
Increased operations funding can help support transit agencies’ efforts to improve safety. Hiring transit ambassadors and having security officers on board are just two interventions that would support crime mitigation efforts. Collaborating with local services to support housing and mental health could help address criminal activity from multiple angles.
We’re glad federal representatives are having conversations about transportation safety, and we hope to see these conversations translate into increased funding for transit operations and security. But to truly address dangerous travel conditions, we need to consider the full picture. We hope to see additional efforts to address the top contributor to transportation-related fatalities in the US: private vehicles on high-speed roads.
On April 27, 2024, Sound Transit opened up the East Link light rail line for riders to connect from Redmond to Bellevue, and ultimately to Seattle. The new rail line was met with noticeable excitement and underscores the need (and eagerness) for improved and additional public transportation.
The opening of the East Link light rail line in Bellevue, Washington (Wikimedia Commons)
Why light rail?
Light rail is rail-based transportation that can operate in mixed traffic (similar to streetcars, which you might find in cities like New Orleans or San Francisco). These systems are designed to carry more passengers than even a very frequent and packed bus line (like the M15 in NYC which carries at least 30,000 passengers daily) but less passengers than a heavy rail transit line (like New York’s 6 train, carrying nearly 400,000 riders a day). Heavy rail is typically utilized when spacing between stations needs to be farther apart, usually for bigger cities like New York City, which is three times larger than Seattle.
Light rail’s charm can come from many perspectives. Riders might choose to take light rail because it can be more reliable and frequent than a bus, particularly buses that have to share lanes with private vehicles. Light rail is a cheaper alternative than driving a car when accounting for time, gas prices, maintenance, and car payments, and taking this form of transit can help riders avoid the frustration of rush hour traffic. The term “light rail” is also associated with “clean” energy use and quiet, quick transport. Meanwhile, municipalities might find that light rail is a more cost-effective option than constructing a subway system.
Building on the success of previous lines, Seattle has invested in the East Link light rail line (also called the 2 Line), which opened to fanfare on April 27, 2024. Once fully completed, the East Link will connect Seattle and the 1 Line (formerly Central Link from Northgate to Angle Lake) in the west to Bellevue and Redmond in the east.
East Link route as of April 27, 2024East Link Extension (Sound Transit)
Bellevue’s transportation champions
The Seattle area’s investment in public transit didn’t start with light rail. In the 1960s, the federal government offered to cover 80 percent of the costs for a potential 49-mile rapid transit system in the state. The funding and proposal were turned down due to fear of growth and financial costs. The lost opportunity spurred movement in Seattle to begin the long process of establishing an improved public transit system. There is a clear priority and demand for improved and additional transit in Washington state—and luckily, there are representatives that understand how to work the levers to obtain it.
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has been recognized as a champion for public transit by the American Public Transportation Association and placed a large emphasis on the importance of public transit in decreasing congestion and emissions, as well as promoting economic growth. She has had a long history with the light rail project and ensuring that Sound Transit has a future. In 2009, Senator Murray secured $1 billion in federal funding for light rail and other transit related projects.
Former mayor of Seattle and Sound Transit Chairman Greg Nickels grappled with the project from the beginning despite the uncertainty of the progressive plan. Even during his run for mayor in 2001, he campaigned aggressively on Sound Transit’s lack of funding and reiterated the importance of light rail. In 2006, when Seattle’s South Lake Union Streetcar opened and received criticism for sharing lanes with private vehicles, Nickels defended the project on the grounds that it would be built more quickly and would be less costly than alternative public transit options, all while adding more jobs.
Mike McGinn, mayor of Seattle from 2010-2013, also campaigned on the commitment to expand the city’s light rail system to connect to West Seattle. One of the roadblocks faced for the transportation project (as is the obstacle for many) is funding. Stakeholders disagreed on whether the transit line should be funded solely by the city or if it should be part of a larger regional project. McGinn called for a Seattle-only ballot measure to raise funds for the expansion of light rail to prevent money from being held up at the state and county level, as suburban politicians were more likely to be reluctant to fund anything that would not directly benefit private vehicle use. It is not uncommon to present policy proposals that will be politically unpopular and having visionaries that understand the long term benefits is one of the many levers that push products like the 2 Line forward.
Local leaders have worked especially hard to move this project forward, such as King County Councilmember Claudia Balducci, an outspoken transit and affordable housing champion. She is a former mayor of Bellevue and continued her advocacy on the 2 Line when she was elected to the city council in 2015. Current Bellevue Mayor Lynne Robinson, Deputy Mayor Mo Malakoutian, and the entire city council have also been supportive of the light rail expansion and were all present for the grand opening.
Groundbreaking ceremony for the East Link in Bellevue (Wikimedia Commons)
Part of supporting progress for transit is understanding where there is hesitancy from constituents and what can be done to address concerns. For example, so that the Eastside community could understand the investment and construction expectations of the project, the city demonstrated how they would strategically incorporate the light rail system into city planning. This led to the creation of the BelRed subarea plan, which aims to deliver transit-oriented development including implementing a broad range of housing and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods that connect to the regional transit network. Safety was another voiced concern, which the city addressed by having first responders train months ahead to respond effectively in tunnels and elevated tracks and activating the Bellevue Police Unit dedicated to security on transit.
Opportunities ahead for the Seattle area and beyond
Seattle has a promising transportation future ahead with the new light rail line and should be used as a guiding light for political leaders and community advocates. This was a long overdue effort for Seattle to connect the east to the west, and despite setbacks along the way, visionaries in recent history helped make it happen by standing tall against the opposition to implement the long needed project. Finally, advocating for change at the leadership level required addressing community needs in a balanced manner, standing by principles, and maintaining the vision that long-term success is complex and requires layered discourse. The story of the East Link shows that creating substantial change comes from all different levels and actors working together to make a difference.
In March 2024, the Office of the Secretary at USDOT announced awards for the Reconnecting Communities Program. This program is intended to improve access to daily needs and repair past harms by removing or mitigating divisive infrastructure, particularly in disadvantaged communities. This year, funding was expanded from last year’s awards, but will these funds meet the program’s goals?
The Reconnecting Communities Program presents an opportunity to address past harms. (Unsplash, Judah Estrada)
As we explained in our report Divided by Design, low-income communities and communities of color have been and continue to be disproportionately harmed by our approach to transportation in the United States. Past decisions, including routing the Interstate Highway System through communities of color, dividing and often demolishing them in the process, still shape our built environment. Without change, people living in communities divided by harmful infrastructure are more likely to be exposed to air pollution, face an increased risk of being hit and killed while walking, and experience reduced access to jobs and opportunity.
A small program to knit communities back together
Last year, we reviewed the first round of awards from the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program, a discretionary grant program aimed at mitigating the damage caused by divisive infrastructure. The second round of awards, announced this year, was combined with the Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) program, forming the Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods Program (which we’ll call the Reconnecting Communities Program). It’s important to note that because NAE funds were allocated all at once, these past two rounds of investment represent the majority of federal funds dedicated to reconnecting communities projects. So how is this investment going?
Many federal infrastructure grants and formula funds go toward highways in some capacity—our recent analysis of state spending found that about 25 percent of federal formula funds are being used for highway expansions. By comparison, safety projects and reconnection projects do not receive the same amount of investment or attention. The Reconnecting Communities Program, though relatively small (roughly $3.3 billion this year) compared to federal formula programs, presents an important opportunity to finance projects that prioritize reconnecting communities.
A lot of the communities that were awarded funding utilized their awards for the Reconnecting Communities Program’s exact intent—they’ve begun work on constructing pedestrian bridges or bike infrastructure, or they’re using the funds to study the feasibility of new routes to bike, walk, and use public transit in their cities. For example, the City of Milwaukee received a $36 million construction grant to build bike and pedestrian infrastructure, as well as transit, along its 6th Street corridor, widened in the 1960s to accommodate vehicle flow from I-94 and I-43, two divisive highways that demolished Black and Brown homes in the mid-1900s. The new project will allow the surrounding neighborhoods to access jobs and services downtown. The Port of Los Angeles received a $5 million grant for a waterfront pedestrian bridge. This project aims to construct a pedestrian bridge over two main freight line tracks, connecting the community to greenspace along the water.
Perpetuating divides
Despite many of these projects using their grant money towards needed improvement and connections, some of the grant funding will not be fully utilized to connect communities. For example, projects that add safety features for people walking and biking around large, dangerous roadways are improvements overall, but they won’t go far enough to truly address divisive infrastructure. These projects would likely be a better fit for larger, more flexible funding sources than a small, specific program like the Reconnecting Communities Program. By using reconnecting communities funds to skirt around divisive infrastructure rather than address it head-on, we risk missing out on more ambitious initiatives to reduce and repair harm.
One of the more egregious examples of an awarded project would be the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project in Oregon. The planned expansion of I-5 in Rose Quarter has faced resistance for years, including from young climate activists at the nearby middle school already exposed to harmful air pollution from the existing highway. ODOT’s plans to cap the highway (while still expanding it) received $450 million in funding from the Reconnecting Communities Program. In this case, the program will mitigate a new harm, not repair a mistake from the past.
The I-5 project is not alone—America Walks identified four projects that received funding from the Reconnecting Communities Program that will ultimately lead to more displacement and approach reconnecting communities as an afterthought. The program is intended to address past divides, but as current decision-making continues to perpetuate harm, this small federal program must bridge an ever-widening gap.
Looking ahead
The Reconnecting Communities Program represents a start to bringing communities together and supporting safe, low-cost, and low-emission travel. The program is still new, and the next reauthorization will present an opportunity to strengthen and expand it. In the meantime, USDOT has an opportunity right now to improve on the substance of the projects that are awarded. USDOT should place a larger emphasis on purposefully moving away from highway systems and provide examples of projects that improve safety and connectivity, such as bike infrastructure and bus rapid transit. In addition, advocacy at the local and federal levels can continue to raise awareness of the importance of connecting communities and building safe streets.
Our current transportation system prioritizes the movement of vehicles over all else, and communities of color and low-income communities have often paid the price. To make a substantial impact in addressing community divides, local and federal agencies will need to take a closer look at how their existing models and practices enable further harm, and work to reshape the system for the better. Learn more here.
#/media/File:First_2_Line_trains_at_Bellevue_Downtown_station_-_April_27,_2024.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:East_Link_Extension_groundbreaking,_April_22,_2016_-_01.jpg){kind=link}