Emily Mangan, Author at Transportation For America

New and expanded transit projects may not get built

City and state budget deficits and a drastic decline in transit ridership have pushed transit agencies to the brink of collapse. Communities that were on the verge of expanding or building new transit may not be able to finance their projects if Congress doesn’t act.

Transit agencies across the country are facing huge operating and budget losses. While transit agencies are still operating to provide essential service, they are on track to lose billions this year due to revenue dwindling as a result of dramatically reduced ridership, increased cleaning costs, diminished local tax receipts, and other impacts from a contracting economy.

This has had a predictable impact on service, with every agency in the country making changes to reflect the drops in ridership. But also at risk are plans to expand or build new transit that have been in the works for years. These new services would yield significant mobility and economic benefits for communities in the years to come, but only if they can get off the ground.

Communities of all sizes apply to the federal Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program in order to secure federal funding for new or expanded transit projects—subway systems, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Participating in the CIG program requires significant local political and financial commitment and years of dedicated work. But even with that comparatively high bar, there is still great demand for this funding, with over $23 billion in requests from projects currently waiting in the CIG “pipeline” for federal funding.

To access funding, Congress has recently required local communities to come up with at least 50 percent of the total cost, and under this administration, FTA has sought to make local communities pay even more. For many CIG projects, the local match comes from tax revenue and local community budgets. In many cases, communities have gone to the ballot to increase taxes to pay for these transit projects.

Now, all those carefully laid plans and contingencies could be for naught in light of the gaping hole that’s suddenly appeared in many municipal budgets—a 50 percent (or greater) local match could become an insurmountable challenge. Even projects that were on the verge of receiving a grant could see their “overall project rating” downgraded, which would prevent them from receiving a grant and delay critical projects which support jobs today, and long term economic development tomorrow.

Boosting CIG to create jobs

Back in March, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Emergency Security (CARES) Act, a $2 trillion relief package that gives transit agencies $25 billion in emergency relief. While providing transit operating support, as the CARES Act did, will continue to be important to keep transit running and allow service to rebound as economies reopen, ensuring that capital projects receive adequate federal support will spur our economic recovery in the long run. Transit is a job creator, and investing in CIG projects means investing in jobs in local communities and in the manufacturing sector across the country. The supply chain for public transportation touches every corner of the country and employs thousands of Americans who produce tracks, seats, windows, communications equipment, wheels, and everything else in between. More than 2,000 manufacturing facilities and companies are tied directly to the manufacture or supply of new transit systems and repairs and upgrades to existing systems.

Every $1 billion invested in public transit creates more than 50,000 jobs and economic returns of $3.7 billion over 20 years. And during the 2009 stimulus, we found that dollar for dollar, “public transportation produced 70 percent more job hours” than funds spent on highways.

Further, access to transit has proven to be critical to economic development, and any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to help people get back to work after this unprecedented crisis subsides. Companies of all sizes are relocating to or deciding to start up in walkable downtowns and communities with transit to ensure access to a high quality workforce. Communities designed around transit are desirable for workers and businesses, which will boost economic growth and support our economic recovery.

Investments in transit create jobs directly, and lay the foundation for long term economic prosperity.

What Congress can do

Congress has already stepped up to help transit agencies get through the beginning of this crisis by providing operating support in the CARES Act, and while transit agencies need additional operating support, we must also think about other important challenges facing transit.

To support local community demands for transit, and job creation today while supporting the conditions for job creation tomorrow, we need CIG, and to save CIG, Congress must:

Provide no less than the FY19 funding level of $2.55 billion and $3.1527 billion in FY21 if Congress enacts the proposals below.
Eliminate the local match for new CIG projects for projects that demonstrate an inability to cover the cost of the local match.
Retroactively eliminate the local match for existing projects that demonstrate an inability to cover the cost of the local match.
Prevent FTA from changing overall project ratings due to changes in local commitments or ridership projections.

A proposal for the long-term transportation reauthorization released by U.S. House Democrats on June 3 would address a number of these points, at least partially. There’s nearly $1 billion for emergency CIG support in the first year and a delay in payment for local matches. The bill would also allow a 30 percent increase in the federal share of project funding (for a total of up to 80 percent) for new projects and projects that received their grant as far back as 2017.

These actions would reduce strain on local community budgets, allow them to proceed with building transit, and give USDOT the resources to fund more projects. In the long-term, this would ensure more robust transit service and greater access to jobs and services. But in the short-term, it would create jobs and put Americans to work. It would allow projects to continue to move through the “pipeline” and eventually receive funding.

What transit agencies can do

As we wrote recently, transit agencies need to track and publicize how COVID-19 is impacting their agency. They should quantify the impacts of low ridership and of keeping service running for essential workers and document stories from personnel and riders to make the case for continued federal funding and local support.

Tell Congress what your agency needs and what your experience of waiting for CIG funds has been like. Congress needs to hear that there is continued demand for CIG funding and sustained local support to continue expanding transit.

And most importantly, continue to engage with local advocates and riders. Ask them to call their elected officials to explain how important transit is, and how transformational new or expanded transit in the community could be.

Stop funding transit like it’s 1982, Congress

Congress has suggested that they may focus on infrastructure in an upcoming stimulus bill. It’s not entirely clear what Congress will do—or if spending on infrastructure is the right way to stimulate the economy right now—but if Congress does want to pass an infrastructure package, they should stop spending money like it’s 1982.

Upset about this broken status quo? Sign our petition urging Congress to fund public transit and highways equally.

For decades, the U.S. has funded transportation based on the idea that the user pays for the infrastructure through a fee—the gas tax, which has filled the Highway Trust Fund since 1956. In 1982, Congress struck a deal to raise the gas tax, but 1 cent of the 5 cent increase would be dedicated to transit, with the remaining spent on highways. This established the infamous “80-20 split” in transportation spending: highways get 80 percent of funds, and transit only gets 20 percent (though in reality, transit gets much less).

Since then, transportation spending has essentially stayed the same. In the most recent spending bill, Congress appropriated $48.6 billion for highways and only $10.2 billion for transit. But the entire logic behind highways receiving a substantially larger portion of the pie—i.e. drivers were paying for it—came crashing down in 2008, when the trust fund ran out of money because the gas tax was no longer sufficient to cover expenditures. To stay afloat, the trust fund has received huge infusions of general taxpayer dollars totaling $144 billion.

Our transportation dollars are no longer based on a user fee paid by drivers, yet the 80-20 funding split persists. This no longer makes any sense. Even the influx of transportation funds from the Recovery Act in 2009 all came from deficit spending from the general fund—not a single dime came from gas tax user fees—yet the vast majority of funding (roughly 75 percent) went to roads.

Why should we continue to honor a nearly 40-year old system based on a nearly defunct user fee? If Congress pursues an infrastructure package or reauthorization as part of a stimulus bill, it will be wholly outside a user fee construct. Considering that, why shouldn’t transit receive more than 20 percent of transportation dollars? Why shouldn’t transit receive 80 percent or even 100 percent of transportation dollars? We are not saying that other modes should not receive any money. The point is that all assumptions should be questioned and funding should go to projects that create jobs quickly in a stimulus bill and support today’s needs and goals, not those of 40 years ago.

It’s time for Congress to abandon this obsolete, untenable split in transportation funding.

Congress has already upended status quo

Whether legislators realized it or not, the recently passed $2 trillion CARES Act has already disrupted the status quo to deal with immediate needs. The act includes $25 billion in direct, emergency assistance for transit at a time when revenue is plummeting. That’s more than double what the federal government usually spends on transit in a year. Normally, transit agencies have been barred from using federal funds for operations, typically only providing funds for maintenance and capital (like building new stations, or buying new buses).

With the passage of the CARES Act, Congress broke with precedent and provided essential funding for transit operations. But we should go further, and end the baseless 80-20 funding split. After all, this pandemic has made it obvious that transit is essential, and it should be funded as such.

With 2.8 million essential workers relying on transit to get to their jobs and countless others depending on it to access food and health care, we need transit to be robust, reliable, and frequent. And we’ll need transit to get tens of millions more people moving once this virus is contained. But giving transit only 20 percent of the pie just won’t cut it.

According to the Federal Transit Administration, our transit systems face a $98 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. Unlike the road maintenance backlog which has more to do with state DOTs prioritizing new roads instead of maintenance, the transit backlog is due to insufficient funding. There is also great demand for more transit capital funding, and operating support will be critical to ensure that agencies can continue to provide this invaluable service and limit crowding.

We have underfunded transit for decades, and doing so has left too many communities with deteriorating systems and infrequent, unreliable service. It’s time to get rid of the 80-20 split. To get through this crisis and build a robust economy again, we’ll need to fund transit equitably and treat it like the vital public good that it is.

EPA rolls back CAFE standards, highlighting the need to reduce driving

This week, as the coronavirus crisis worsens, the Trump administration finalized its rollback of clean car standards, a move that will undermine public health and place even more of a burden on finding ways to reduce driving to reduce emissions.

As expected, the Trump Administration released the second part of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, which would require automakers increase fuel economy of passenger cars by 1.5 percent each year, compared to the previous more stringent 5 percent increase mandated by the Obama administration. This would allow cars on American roads to emit nearly a billion tons more carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the vehicles.

As cities and towns across the country urge people to stay home and only venture out for essential trips, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions have dropped drastically across the country. In Los Angeles, a city notoriously choked with smog from tailpipe emissions, skies have been remarkably clear as highways have been empty, demonstrating just how much pollution comes from all those cars and endless highways in any other normal week.

But while empty highways have been one of the most visceral signs that our economy has come to a standstill, we shouldn’t need to sacrifice our lungs and health for the sake of a robust economy.

There are ways to have both a booming economy and cleaner air and clear skies. One way is through more efficient and electric vehicles. But with the federal government reluctant to set ambitious efficiency standards for automakers, the floor dropping out on oil prices, and relatively slow sales of EVs, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. (Ford and GM are only planning to make 320,000 electric vehicles in 2026, fewer than Tesla made last year.) The only other way is to provide meaningful transportation options that would help people reduce the distance they need to drive—or eliminate vehicle trips altogether.

We need fuel efficient vehicles, but this crisis has also shown us the deep value of having other transportation options, especially for those who need it the most. Over 600,000 transit commuters work at hospitals, in doctor’s offices, or as home health providers; 165,000 people take transit to jobs in grocery stores or pharmacies; and 150,000 workers in social services commute on transit. Transit is essential now more than ever, and it will be essential to getting our economy back up and running again.

We need more robust federal support for transit operations so buses and trains can provide frequent and reliable service. We also need a better way to fund projects that build new or expand existing transit service. Across the country, there are dozens of projects trying to get off the ground, collectively hoping for more than $23 billion in federal support. To reduce emissions and provide options other than driving, local transit agencies need a reliable federal partner.

While the clean air across the country is welcome but also a painful reminder that we’re in a crisis, it also shows us what could be possible if we found ways to reduce driving and remove even just a small share of cars off the road. But to do that, we need to give people cleaner options. This week’s latest action proves once again that the administration is moving in the wrong direction.

2.8 million essential workers use transit to get to their jobs

A new report from TransitCenter finds that 2.8 million transit riders are considered “essential workers” during the COVID-19 emergency, underscoring just how essential it is to keep transit running. Under normal circumstances, they account for more than a third of total transit commuters in the country.

Transit is part of the public health response to COVID-19. Transit agencies across the country transport millions of essential personnel—including hospital staff, grocery store workers, and pharmacists—to and from jobs everyday. It’s essential to keep transit running frequently and reliably to get these workers where they need to go as millions of others are forced to forgo their usual transit trips to abide by “shelter in place” mandates.

The latest report from TransitCenter finds that nationwide over 600,000 transit commuters work at hospitals, in doctor’s offices, or as home health providers; 165,000 people take transit to jobs in grocery stores or pharmacies; and 150,000 workers in social services commute on transit. On a normal day before this crisis, essential workers accounted for 38 percent of transit commuters in New York City, 33 percent in Seattle, and 36 percent in Miami.

Now that transit agencies across the country have started to reduce service frequency and cut routes due to financial shortfalls and lost fare revenue, many of these essential workers can’t easily get to work. With less frequent service, buses and subways are more likely to be crowded and therefore unsafe due to the inability to adequately keep a safe distance from others.

If service stays frequent, TransitCenter writes, “at stops, stations, and on vehicles, commuters will have space to distance themselves from each other, protecting themselves and others from potential virus spread.” Maintaining frequent transit service will help these workers stay safe and healthy.

According to a previous report put out earlier this week, transit agencies could see an annual shortfall of $26-$38 billion. It’s welcome news that Congress has struck a deal to provide $25 billion in emergency aid for transit, but we’ll need sustained help from Congress to keep service running during this pandemic and keep millions of essential workers working. And we’ll need transit to be able to return to full strength in the aftermath of this crisis and help fuel our recovery by carrying millions of people back to work.

Lessons from the last Recession

What would it look like if transit service is unable to survive through the pandemic and bounce back with reliable service to help fuel our economic recovery? We don’t have to guess—we can look back at what happened during the Great Recession a decade ago. Because of declining sales tax revenues, agencies were being forced to cut service, raise fares, and lay off employees—even as transit ridership was actually on the upswing back then. At T4America, we chronicled the impact on riders, and gathered hundreds of stories from real people who were affected:

I work closing shift at a restaurant in downtown Sacramento and take the bus to and from work five days a week. I get off work at 10:40 and the last bus is at 10:50 so I have to run to make it. Sometimes I need to stay late to finish closing the restaurant after a busy night and don’t get a bus. The taxi fare is $40 to get home. Now the bus schedule might change with reduced hours. I don’t want to get a car because it is expensive, dangerous, and I don’t have a license to drive. Driving without a license will be my only option with the new hours. Pablo – Sacramento, CA

I live in North San Diego county and because of transit routes being canceled I have been unable to take better paying jobs and it has cut down on recreational activities. It takes longer to go to the grocery store, I have to walk farther after I get off the bus and times have been changed so I end up missing appointments. Leah – Encinitas, CA

The cuts in the bus service occurred a few years ago. The one that has been difficult to adjust to, is [the route] by the hospital where I have doctor’s appointments. The service was cut from one hour to every half-hour. If I don’t want to wait too long, I can walk a few blocks to another stop, but it is a more difficult walk for me as I am blind, and the crossing of one of the streets is somewhat more dangerous. I prefer to take the bus instead of using the ADA paratransit service when I can. Janet – Hartford, CT

That’s just a small slice of what we heard 10 years ago when transit agencies were struggling in the face of a recession. Transit service is vital today and Congress’ plan to provide transit agencies with $25 billion in emergency assistance will provide a lifeline—for now. But we don’t know how long this crisis will continue. And we’ll never be able to get our economy back on its feet without robust transit service in cities large and small that collectively move millions of people.

Transit is a public good—let’s treat it that way

Across the country, transit agencies are urging people to stay home to protect public health. The steep decline in ridership over the past week due to the COVID-19 outbreak has caused transit to enter an unprecedented fiscal crisis. But Congress refuses to recognize how urgently transit needs support.

Send a message to your representatives in Congress: we must save transit before it’s too late.

Take action

Public transit is just that—public. It’s a public service and a public good that millions of Americans rely on to access jobs, healthcare, pharmacies, and groceries. And right now, transit agencies across the country are taking a huge hit from dramatic decline in ridership due to COVID-19.

The amount of money transit agencies large and small are losing is staggering. Ridership on Washington, DC’s Metro dropped 85 percent, and the agency projects an unprecedented loss of $52 million a month. Chicago’s transit system saw rail ridership down 75 percent and bus use down 59 percent. BART in San Francisco says a sustained ridership loss of 85 percent and a 50 percent reduction of economic activity could reduce BART’s monthly revenues by $55 million. And New York City’s MTA is requesting $4 billion to stay afloat.

The stories of small transit agencies suspending service are also beginning to emerge. Greater Glens Falls Transit in Upstate New York plans to suspend all service in a few days. Green Bay Metro Transit in Wisconsin stopped regular public transportation service on March 16. Macatawa Area Express, which serves Holland, MI, suspended all bus routes March 18. And this is just the beginning.

Even as their ridership plummets and their ability to survive is in question, transit agencies and public officials are urging people not to take transit. It’s the right thing to do to slow the spread of the pandemic. But while public transit takes a hit for the common good, airlines are trying to entice customers with cheap airfares.

Transit is a public service and deserves support from Congress right now, not in some later stimulus package. By then—whenever “then” is—it could be too late. Senate Republicans unveiled their latest economic relief package on March 19, and not a single dollar is dedicated to supporting transit.

For transit, short-term financial losses now could easily damage the level of service transit agencies are able to provide in the long-term. It’s not as simple as turning on a spigot and starting up transit service again. It could take years for transit agencies to recover from the loss of fares and tax revenue and provide frequent service again. Robust transit service demands skilled staff—drivers, operators, mechanics, engineers, and numerous others—who need to be retained for the future.

The transit system is an extension of the healthcare system and part of the healthcare response to COVID-19. Healthcare and other essential workers need the system to get to their jobs and we need to support transit to ensure that it can provide robust service in the future. We need Congress to act and treat transit like a public good.

Take action

What would a Green New Deal for transportation look like?

Current federal transportation policy is diametrically opposed to climate action. The Green New Deal framework released a year ago mostly left that unchanged. But a new report T4America contributed to fills in those gaps and gives transportation policy the same visionary makeover to show what we could achieve if our transportation and climate goals were aligned.

When the Green New Deal was first released last year, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne had some pointed critiques.

The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the United States and it’s also the one that federal officials have the most control over with the power of the purse. Yet the Green New Deal is largely devoid of the bold reimagining of federal transportation spending which encourages more roads, more driving, more sprawl, and more emissions.

The Green New Deal as originally introduced completely ignores the role development patterns play in driving the climate crisis and fails to align our transportation policy with our environmental goals and aspirations (to say nothing of what people actually want from our transportation system). Though the Green New Deal is a broad policy framework, that’s a glaring oversight for something billed as a comprehensive answer to climate change.

We also know that current federal policy is actively undermining any progress on achieving real climate progress. The way we distribute money incentivizes more road building and more driving. The amount we spend on transit is pitiful compared to the amount spent on highways. Americans want more transportation options, but are stuck with their cars. Electric buses would be welcome, but too many people can’t safely walk to the bus stop because our streets are designed to prioritize high-speed traffic over safety.

So what would our federal transportation policy look like if the Green New Deal reimagined it? How would we invest limited transportation dollars to align our environmental ambitions with our policy? In a new report that we contributed to—A Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation—we outline how federal transportation policy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by:

Putting the majority of Americans within walking distance of frequent, high-quality public transit by 2030, by providing agencies with operating assistance to run more buses and trains, expanding overall funding for transit projects, and encouraging transit-oriented development.
Incentivizing and requiring communities to design transit-friendly streets and safe roadways for all users.
Prioritizing roadway maintenance over expansion, and ensuring that any new road capacity meets environmental goals.
Ensuring a “just transition” that creates secure, well-paying jobs and funds training and apprenticeship programs in the transit industry.
Providing funding for research into barriers to equitable transit provision.
Creating an EV incentive program weighted by income, geography, and vehicle size.

A better transportation system

A Green New Deal done right provides an opportunity to break out of the status quo and do transportation better. It’s an opportunity to reevaluate our transit and roadway systems, invest in electric vehicles, and broaden our conception of frontline communities in this sector—namely, the suburban and urban communities where public transit service is sparse or non-existent and owning a personal vehicle is all but required.

We can use the transportation sector as a strategic lever toward a Green New Deal by tackling our highest sources of carbon emissions, putting millions of people to work upgrading and repairing existing infrastructure rather than building new roads. Bringing our road and transit systems into a state of good repair over the next 10 years could support or create over 6.6 million jobs across the U.S. economy.

By making our cities and suburbs easy and safe to navigate without driving, we’ll also equitably grow our economy. In an America with abundant transit and safe streets for walking, biking, and rolling, more jobs will be within reach of people with low incomes, and transportation costs will consume far less of their earnings. What’s more, with less driving we’ll have less congestion. Our expensive gambit to build our way out of congestion hasn’t worked, but a Green New Deal could.

By providing more options, we’ll enable millions of people to take advantage of jobs and opportunities throughout their cities and regions, reducing the current disparities in mobility linked to race, economic status, age, or ability. The incidence of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic ailments caused by car pollution—which disproportionately afflict communities of color—will fall.

Getting transportation and climate policy right

It’s striking that many climate plans almost completely ignore transportation and land use. But our new report makes it clear what a huge opportunity we would be squandering without more direct, visionary action with a Green New Deal.

We have an enormous opportunity to both reduce emissions and rethink our transportation system. Let’s focus on the outcomes we want to achieve, not just how much money we’re going to spend. We can’t keep doing the same old transportation policy. Download the full report to learn more.

Voters want and need more transportation options

New polling conducted by YouGov on behalf of T4America and our partners finds that Americans support expanding public transit by a 77-15 margin—even as many transit agencies face a growing generational funding crisis brought on by COVID-19.

Americans want a better transportation system that provides them meaningful options. This week, we released new polling results alongside our partners at TransitCenter, Data for Progress, the Ian L. McHarg Center for Urbanism and Ecology, and the Socio-Spatial Climate Collaborative. It helps us answer a crucial question: what do voters really want out of our transportation system?

Unsurprisingly, voters want more transportation options and to see tangible outcomes from their investments in the system.

The data reinforces many of the same results we’ve seen in our polling over the years: voters are prepared to spend more on public transit and want to orient government spending toward improving existing infrastructure. While many rely on cars, a majority said they want to have other options to get around each day. Democrats and Republicans agree that the government should be prioritizing fixing our roads and helping with congestion in our cities.

For too many, driving is the only option

Car use is prevalent among voters in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that everyone wants to drive everywhere, all the time, for every single trip. Far from it. By and large, voters feel they have insufficient alternatives to driving and have no choice but to use their cars as much as they do.

Among those who reported a car was their primary mode of transportation, about 80 percent agreed that they have “no choice” but to drive as much as they do. Just over half of car users report wishing they had more options, and about the same share of car owners said that public transit was not convenient for their needs.

Surprisingly, voters on net support a policy to reduce the number of personal automobiles on the road. By a 47-38 margin voters agree that the government should aim to reduce the number of vehicles in the U.S. over the next few years. This includes a clear 68-12 net support among Democrats and 43-38 net positive support among Independents as well. About 23 percent of Republicans somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement.

Voters want more options, but are they willing to pay for transit? The answer is a resounding “yes!”

Voters support transit

Even though many Americans don’t have access to a convenient transit network, they still believe transit has enormous benefits. The polling shows that 66 percent of voters believe their own communities would benefit from expanding public transit while about 77 percent of voters believe the US overall would benefit from expanding public transit. This support includes near unanimity among Democrats, 90 percent of whom agree.

Overall, Americans clearly support having better public transportation systems. This basic conclusion is robust across a variety of political, demographic, and geographic factors.

To have better public transit, people are willing to pay for it. Nearly four times as many voters support increasing public transportation funding as support reducing it. There’s even no appetite for cuts to investments in public transportation, even accounting for party identification and geography. Less than 1 in 5 Republicans support cutting transportation spending. As recent historical data has borne out, when voters go to the ballot to raise taxes to invest in transit, those measures pass at around a 70 percent clip.

Across the political spectrum, voters support increasing funding by a 77-15 margin. When asked how much should be spent on public transportation, the average response was $0.33 of every federal transportation dollar; current public transportation spending is only about $0.20 per dollar. Americans are clearly ready to shift transportation dollars toward transit.

Broad agreement on fix it first

Most popular of all, and what we’ve been saying for years, is that fixing our existing infrastructure before building something new is enormously popular across the political divide. The polling indicates that not only do voters support additional spending on maintaining existing roads and bridges, they want new policies that would obligate local governments to do so.

Fully 79 percent of voters agreed that the government should fix existing roads before building new ones. About 73 percent support a new set of obligations on state governments to justify any new roads, and 61 percent support an outright moratorium on new roads for ten years as a means of reorienting local governments toward repairing infrastructure.

There is bipartisan agreement in the electorate that we should be prioritizing maintenance, but Congress is ignoring what their constituents want.

Give people options, but also give them EVs

We found that in addition to wanting more and better transit across the country, voters also want to be able to afford an electric vehicle. Subsidies that would increase the availability of electric vehicles were widely popular.

We also found support for “generous rebates” for electric vehicles that specifically help those living in areas where a stronger transit network is less feasible. About 69 percent of Democrats supported while Republicans only narrowly opposed rebates, by a 37-47 margin.

What voters want

American voters want a national transportation system that provides more options, that frees them from total dependence on cars, and that fixes our existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, current policy is designed to achieve precisely none of that: we underfund transit, over invest in roads, and favor new construction over maintenance. It’s clear that voters want to build a better transportation system—and they support the policies that would make that possible. Now it’s time for Congress to act. In our new report released today—A Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation—we show how Congress could fundamentally restructure federal transportation policy to achieve the basic outcomes that Americans support, while also protecting our environment, health, and pocketbooks.

House environment coalition demands real transportation policy reform to tackle climate change

Last week, leaders of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC) urged Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves to use surface transportation reauthorization as an opportunity to take serious action on climate change.

“A status quo highway bill will no longer serve the needs of our country or our planet; instead, it would risk putting us at a competitive disadvantage while leaving us all more vulnerable to the dangers of climate change.”

We couldn’t agree more. The fact that those words came from sitting members of Congress is even more stirring. In a letter, the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition urged the U.S. House to use surface transportation reauthorization—the process that sets federal transportation policy for the next five years—as an opportunity to change our outdated transportation policy and make real strides reducing emissions in the transportation sector. We applaud their vision. The letter was led by SEEC Co-Chairs Reps. Gerry Connolly (VA-11), Paul Tonko (NY-20), and Doris Matsui (CA-6), and SEEC Vice-Chairs Reps. Chellie Pingree (ME-1), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Mike Quigley (IL-5), Matt Cartwright (PA-8) and A. Donald McEachin (VA-4).

Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG), contributing 29 percent of the United States’ total greenhouse gas emissions and the majority of these emissions come from driving. As the Coalition wrote in their letter, “Our current highway policy undermines our climate goals by favoring new highways, roads, and lanes that induce more driving, over transit, biking, and walking.” Without structural reform and reducing the distance people drive, we’ll never reduce our emissions enough and create a transportation system that works for everyone.

The letter called for the creation of performance measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle miles traveled, and “cumulative criteria pollution” (which includes carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide) in the transportation sector, similar to the GREEN Streets Act introduced in both the House and Senate. Further, the Coalition called for the use of accessibility, or destination access, to measure whether or not people can get to their destinations, replacing the outdated, ineffective, & car-centric proxies we currently use. As we’ve written about, we think the use of accessibility as a metric of success would be transformative.

Using access to evaluate projects may show that building and repairing sidewalks in a community would dramatically improve access to jobs and services for more residents than redesigning one intersection for cars. It may show that a new bus line would make it easier for residents in a low-income community to access healthcare. Choosing to invest in these types of projects would make better connections within communities and would reduce the distance needed to drive, and in turn reduce emissions.

The Coalition also called for the “creation of a national complete streets program to provide technical assistance and incentives for the adoption of policies that facilitate better pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit travel.” The Complete Streets Act of 2019, supported by our sister organization, the National Complete Streets Coalition, would do just that and is currently pending before the House and Senate. This bill would incentivize states and metro areas to finally design and build safer streets for everyone, and give them federal funding to do it.

We need a new vision for our transportation system, and the leadership and vision from the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition indicates that fixing our transportation policy is possible. We know that electrification and fuel efficiency alone will not suffice to meet our decarbonization goals by 2050. To meet our emissions reductions goals, we need to create a more equitable multimodal transportation system. We look forward to working with the Coalition to turn these principles into policy.

House bill sets new standard for GREEN Streets

Last week, Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-02) introduced a bill that would measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled on our roadways. This would be transformative.

Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG), contributing 29 percent of the United States’ total GHG emissions. The majority of these emissions come from driving. But right now, we don’t measure emissions on our roadways. Without measuring these emissions, we will never be able to reduce them.

Rep. Huffman’s new House bill—H.R. 5354, The Generating Resilient, Environmentally Exceptional National (GREEN) Streets Act—would change this. The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Pocan (D-WI), Connelly (D-VA), Lowenthal (D-CA), Rep. Haaland (D-NM), and Blumenauer (D-OR), will create new performance measures and goals requiring that states measure and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG in their transportation systems.

Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), along with Senators Carper (D-DE), Sanders (I-VT), and Durbin (D-IL), introduced companion legislation in the Senate earlier this year.

“Tackling climate change is going to mean moving away from the current model of more highways and longer commutes to a model of safer, healthier, and more resilient communities,” said Rep. Huffman, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “The GREEN Streets Act will be an essential component of this effort by transforming how we measure success in the federal transportation program and how we hold federal and state decision-makers accountable for reducing carbon pollution.”

To reduce VMT and GHG, states would likely have to employ a variety of strategies, including better transportation options and smarter land use. These strategies come with a host of additional benefits: less congestion, lower household transportation costs, safer streets, more attractive communities, and improved public health.

California has already taken steps to do something similar to what the GREEN Streets Act would require. California’s law SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts. For development projects, VMT is now the new metric for transportation analysis, replacing level-of-service.

We need new metrics to measure the success of our transportation system in a way that provides a more holistic, inclusive view of the system. The GREEN Streets Act is a huge step in the right direction, requiring states to begin measuring and reporting how far people are driving, the resulting emissions, and then working to reduce both. We need a new vision for our transportation system, and this legislation will help us get there.

TransportationCamp DC 2020 tickets are on sale! Join us at this “unconference” for transportation nerds on Saturday, January 11th at the Catholic University of America.

Connecting people to jobs and services week: The legislative path to make access the goal of transportation investments

A heat map of bike accessibility in the San Francisco Bay Area. Lighter colors indicate fewer jobs can be reached within 30 minutes on “medium-stress” bike routes while darker colors indicate more jobs can be reached. Map via University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory.

Measuring access—not vehicle speed—is smart policy. But local governments, states, and metropolitan planning organizations need support from the federal government to make this happen. It’s high time for Congress to make robust travel data and analysis tools available to transportation agencies.

It’s “Connecting people to jobs and services week” here at Transportation for America. All week we’ll be exploring why improving access should be the goal of the federal transportation program—not vehicle speed.

Having thousands of jobs within a region doesn’t do much good if residents don’t have convenient, safe, and affordable transportation options to reach those jobs. That’s why the concept of measuring whether transportation investments improve access to jobs and services can be transformative. Improving access to jobs and services, not merely aiming for high-speed vehicle travel within a corridor or minimal delay, should be the goal of our transportation investments.

But right now, the implicit goal of all federal transportation investments is to increase vehicle speed, not improve access. Changing the goal from vehicle speed to improving access requires rethinking our federal transportation policy from the ground up.

With the current authorization for federal transportation spending—the FAST Act—set to expire in 2020, it’s time for Congress to determine transportation policy for the next five to six years. Once passed, this legislation will set federal funding levels and policy for transportation for the bill’s duration. It is critical for this bill to reform the federal program to prioritize access.

We need to determine how well the transportation system connects people to jobs and services, and prioritize projects that will improve those connections. Congress should require USDOT to collect the data necessary to develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services and set national goals for improvement.

To do this, Congress should:

Determine national connectivity: USDOT should develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services, and set national goals for improvement.
Measure the right things: apply accessibility to the federal transportation program in performance management and project selection.
Update standards: Phase out outdated metrics such as level of level of service.
Use 21st century tools: USDOT should provide accessibility data to states, MPOs, and local communities.

States such as Utah, Delaware, Virginia, California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii along with the cities of Sacramento and Los Angeles are already utilizing this type of data and seeing results.

Unfortunately, states and MPOs must currently pay to access this data while far less useful congestion data is made readily available by USDOT.

A bill before Congress would pilot destination access; let’s take it a step further

Earlier this year, members of Congress introduced the bipartisan Connecting Opportunities through Mobility Metrics and Unlocking Transportation Efficiencies (COMMUTE) Act in both the House and Senate. This legislation would pilot measuring access nationwide. We are grateful for the leadership of Senators Baldwin (D-WI) and Ernst (R-IA) and Congressman DeSaulnier (D-CA) along with Reps. Curtis (R-UT) and McAdams (D-UT), in the House.

The COMMUTE Act would create a competitive pilot program to provide five states, 10 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and five rural planning organizations with data sets to calculate how many jobs and services (such as schools, medical facilities, banks, and groceries) are accessible by all modes of travel. These data sets will also be made available to local governments and researchers.

In July, Congress took an important first step on transportation policy when the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved its portion of a surface transportation reauthorization bill (America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act). We were happy the bill included a pilot program based on the COMMUTE Act to help a select group of states and metros measure whether or not their investments are connecting people to jobs and services. This demonstrated the bipartisan support for the common sense idea of measuring the success of our transportation system by whether it creates access to jobs and services.

But we can and should do more. Access to jobs and services has to be the core of any transportation authorization. Support for the pilot in the Senate indicates an opportunity to do much more. That is why we are urging Congress to go further and require USDOT to collect the data necessary to develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services and set national goals for improvement.

The House of Representatives will soon release its proposed surface transportation authorization. This is an opportunity to demonstrate a new vision for transportation, based on modern data and valuing what really matters.

It’s time for Congress to act and hold ourselves accountable for improving access.

Do climate plans do enough on transportation?

Climate change has become a top issue for Americans, so how do the top Democratic candidates plan to reduce emissions? Here’s a brief look at what some of the presidential candidates are proposing when it comes to emissions from transportation.

A recent poll found that most American teenagers are “frightened” by climate change. It is no surprise then that candidates for president and members of Congress are releasing their plans to combat the climate crisis. So what do the Democratic presidential candidate front-runners say about transportation in their climate plans? Not nearly enough.

Virtually every plan released to date focuses on promoting electric vehicles (EVs) and strengthening fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. While EV adoption and increased efficiency are essential for reaching any ambitious climate target, they will not be sufficient on their own to decarbonize the transportation sector.

T4America Director Beth Osborne explained why recently in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Transportation is now the largest single source of climate pollution and the vast majority of those emissions—83 percent—come from the cars and trucks that people drive to the grocery store or school or that deliver our Amazon orders. All that driving is why transportation pollution keeps increasing, despite gains in fuel efficiency standards and the adoption of electric vehicles. Between 1990-2016, despite a sizable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet, national emissions rose by 21 percent. Why? Because those improvements were accompanied by a 50 percent increase in driving. Cleaner and electric vehicles are essential, but they’ll only ever be a small part of the solution. For one, it takes a long time for the vehicle fleet to turn over. Even if Americans purchased nothing but electric vehicles starting today, gas-powered cars would still be on the road for at least another 15 years.

Emissions won’t drop fast enough if we pin all our hopes on EVs. We need to reduce the amount and distance people drive through better land use and by promoting transit, walking, and biking. Today, our federal policy incentivizes high speed, long distance driving—rewarding states that increase both with more money—and makes it far too difficult to build communities which provide people with transportation choice.

Even the Green New Deal fails to adequately address the need to reduce driving and rethink our land use decisions.

The climate plans & transportation

We took an in-depth look at the climate plans from the top eight presidential candidates (according to RealClearPolitics polling data as of November 1, 2019) for the Democratic Party nomination. We’ve also included Jay Inslee in our analysis, despite the fact that he dropped out of the race, because his climate plan is widely considered to have set the standard for climate plans.

There are some candidates running for the Republican nomination for president, but none of them have released climate plans. The closest thing President Trump has to a climate plan is the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule which could actually increase pollution.

Note: Investments, quantifiable targets, or policy proposals below are bolded; broad value statements or acknowledgements of an issue without a proposal to address it are not bolded.

Polling	Candidate	Electrify vehicles	Reduce driving	Promote bikeable/walkable communities	Invest in transit	Support passenger rail
n/a	Biden's unity task force	Support “cash-for-clunkers” style approaches to incentivize accelerated adoption of zero-emission passenger vehicles. Provide incentives for manufacturers to build new factories or retool existing factories in the United States to assemble zero-emission vehicles or manufacture charging equipment.		“Encourage states to prioritize allocation of transportation funds for public mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and ensure transportation options and infrastructure meet the needs of tribal, rural, and urban communities to fully participate in zero-emissions transport.”	“Encourage states to prioritize allocation of transportation funds for public mass transit, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and ensure transportation options and infrastructure meet the needs of tribal, rural, and urban communities to fully participate in zero-emissions transport. Make major improvements to public transit and light rail. Preserve and grow the union workforce within the rail, transit and maritime sectors.” “We commit to public transportation as a public good, including ensuring transit jobs are good jobs.”	Invest in high speed passenger and freight rail systems, while reducing pollution, helping connect workers to quality jobs with shorter commutes, and spurring investment in communities more efficiently connected to major metropolitan areas and unlocking new, affordable access for every American.
1	Biden	500,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2030 and restore the full electric vehicle tax credit.	Altering local regulations to eliminate sprawl and allow for denser, more affordable housing near public transit would cut commute times for many of the country’s workers while decreasing their carbon footprint.	Communities across the country are experiencing a growing need for alternative and cleaner transportation options, including transit, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian thoroughfares, and first- and last-mile connections.		Ensure that America has the cleanest, safest, and fastest rail system in the world and will begin the construction of an end-to-end high speed rail system that will connect the coasts.
2	Warren	Zero emissions in all new light and medium duty vehicles by 2030.			Expand and improve public transit across our country.
3	Sanders	100 percent electric vehicles powered with renewable energy.	For too long, government policy has encouraged long car commutes, congestion, and dangerous emissions. Create more livable, connected, and vibrant communities.		$300 billion investment to increase public transit ridership by 65 percent by 2030.	$607 billion investment in a regional high-speed rail system.
4	Buttigeig	All new passenger vehicles sold be zero-emissions by 2035.	Switching from individual vehicles to public transportation not only reduces traffic congestion, but also reduces emissions while improving air quality.	$100 billion over 10 years, which will include installing bike and scooter lanes.	$100 billion over 10 years, which will include modernizing subways and other transit systems and deploying electric commuter buses and school buses.
5	Harris	100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2035.	Incentivize people to reduce car usage and use public transit...focusing our transportation infrastructure investments toward projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled and address gaps in first mile, last mile service.		Funding robust public transportation networks to bring communities together.
6	Yang	Require all models from 2030 on to be zero-emission vehicles.			$200 billion grant program to states to electrify transit systems.
7	Gabbard	While Gabbard has not released a climate plan, she has introduced legislation in the U.S. House that would require all new vehicle sales to be 100% electric by 2035.
8	O'Rourke	Rapidly accelerate the adoption of zero-emission vehicles.			$1.2 trillion through grants and other investments, including: Transportation grants that cut commutes, crashes, and carbon pollution — all while boosting access to public transit.
--	Honorable Mention: Jay Inslee		Invest federal moneys and expand effective public policies linking community-based economic development to housing affordability and mobility.	Promote vibrant communities, more healthy and walkable neighborhoods, and both the preservation of existing affordable housing and construction of new affordable units.	Invest in expanding public transit and connecting people in communities through safe, multi-modal transportation options. More than double annual federal investment in public transit systems and incentivize expansion of transit networks.	Provide major new federal investment in electrifying passenger and freight rail throughout the country, and offering federal investment to states and regional partnerships to expand ultra-high-speed rail.

Politicians think EVs will solve our transportation problems

It’s telling that each candidate has ambitious targets for EV adoption but largely lack policies and investments for other forms of transportation. While EVs will go a long way toward reducing transportation emissions, they don’t go quite far enough. As we’ve written about previously, an all electric vehicle fleet won’t reduce emissions enough to reach our climate targets.

Not only will EVs fail to address the climate crisis, but they will do nothing to address the larger shortcomings of our current transportation system.

EVs won’t make our communities more walkable, bikeable, or transit-oriented. We’ve designed many of our roadways and communities so that it’s almost impossible to get around without a car. People often have no choice but to sit in traffic to get to work and the grocery store. Electrifying everything won’t change this. Nor will it help those who can’t afford a vehicle in the first place, regardless of how it’s powered. We need holistic transportation solutions that make it safe, affordable, and convenient to get people where they need to go.

The elephant in the room

These plans are all missing any meaningful discussion and understanding of how land use and transportation are inextricably linked, likely because we tend to think that the federal government plays no role in land use decisions.

But federal transportation policy drives local land use decisions. Where we build roads and highways influences where developers build houses and stores. When we give states a blank check to build a new highway while giving them a minuscule amount for transit (if they can jump through all the regulatory hoops we apply to transit funding), we’re encouraging more sprawl. As houses, businesses, parks, and other daily destinations spread farther apart, people are forced to drive farther and farther, increasing our emissions in the process.

Federal transportation policy has an essential role to play in reducing transportation emissions and making our transportation system work for everyone. How we spend federal transportation money should reflect this and keep climate goals in mind. So far, it seems as though most Democratic presidential candidates don’t quite understand this.

Members of Congress launch a new caucus on transportation policy

Today, Representatives Chuy García (IL-4), Ayanna Pressley (MA-7), and Mark Takano (CA-41) launched a new caucus dedicated to creating a vision for the future of our transportation system that emphasizes equity, access, and sustainability.

Reps García, Pressley, Takano, and Earl Blumenauer (OR-3) at the launch of the Congressional Future of Transportation Caucus.

Transportation for America joined the representatives as they launched their new caucus in front of a packed room of constituents and transportation advocates. The “Future of Transportation Caucus,” as the members have dubbed their new group, will dedicate itself to revisiting the underlying policies that have built the transportation systems that continue to crumble into disrepair, fuel inequities, exacerbate climate change, and fail to connect people to jobs and services.

Speaking at the launch, the co-chairs of the caucus expressed the need for a more visionary and equitable transportation policy.

“Access to safe, reliable, and inclusive modes of transportation is a matter of social justice,” Rep. Pressley said during the event. She explained that the caucus would work to advance policies that prioritize “community connectivity, multimodal networks with seamless bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure so that every community has access to critical housing, education, employment, and the health services necessary to thrive.”

Rep. Garcia echoed this sentiment, saying, “It boils down to social justice. People cannot afford to get to where they need to go or stay where they grew up. We need to take a step back and start thinking about what it is we’re throwing hundreds of billions of dollars [at] every year.”

“This caucus will refocus Congress’s discussion on transportation that goes beyond just funding,” Rep. Takano said. He continued, saying that the caucus would “create an approach to transportation that centers on equity, accessibility, and sustainability.”

We couldn’t agree more with the caucus co-chairs. As we explained in our recent blog post outlining our new principles for transportation policy and investment, the one-dimensional debate about transportation funding leaves out an urgently needed conversation about the purpose of the federal transportation program. We need to ask ourselves what we’re trying to accomplish and provide accountability to the American taxpayer by making a few clear, concrete, measurable goals.

We know that existing policy exacerbates climate change, fails to maintain our roads, puts pedestrians and bikers in danger, and makes it nearly impossible to build new or expand transit systems.

We’re excited to see that some members of Congress agree with us on this. The Future of Transportation Caucus is a huge step in the right direction and shows the some policymakers are interested in actually writing new policy. This conversation desperately needs to be had on the Hill. We look forward to working with the caucus as they discuss new goals for our transportation system and the policies we’ll need to achieve them, not just some pie in the sky dollar amount for infrastructure.

Federal transportation policy is undermining any progress on climate

The conversation on climate change tends to focus on a few big things—electric vehicles, renewable energy, putting a price on carbon. But no matter how much progress we make on those fronts, Democrats and Republicans remain deeply committed to antiquated policy that undermines any action we take on climate change: spending billions to build new highways, encouraging more and more driving.

Transportation accounts for the largest share of carbon emissions in the U.S., and those emissions are rising—even as other sectors have improved. As federal policy and funding encourages more and wider highways, people live further away from the things they need and the places they go. We’re driving further and further every year just to get where we need to go. Emissions have risen despite increases in fuel efficiency standards and the adoption of electric vehicles. Despite an admirable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet from 1990-2016, emissions still rose by 21 percent. Why was that? Because the total amount of miles traveled increased by 50 percent in that same period.

Simply put, we’ll never achieve ambitious climate targets if we don’t reduce driving.

We don’t have a money problem, we have a policy problem

Politicians (and the media) love to bemoan our “crumbling roads and bridges.” That must mean we need more money to fix them, right? Here’s a secret: most of the billions we spend every year on our infrastructure never go to repair. Despite the rhetoric, there is nothing in federal law that requires states to repair the roads we already have, so most federal money goes to building more highways. That’s a problem that more money won’t solve.

Even the National Academy of Sciences, through the Transportation Research Board, has called for massively increasing highway spending to as much as $70 billion annually to accommodate (or encourage, as it were) an additional 1.25 trillion miles of driving each year—blatantly ignoring what this would do to our emissions.

California, Hawaii, and Minnesota have all found that even with a fleet of electric vehicles, they will still fail to reach their aggressive climate targets without an accompanying effort to reduce driving.

A better federal policy would be to invest more in climate-friendly transportation options like transit, walking, and biking, and to stop stacking the deck so that local communities have to choose between easy money for a highway or an uphill slog for transit cash. While we guarantee states over $40 billion annually for highways, only $2.6 billion is available for new or expanded public transit, and this funding is not guaranteed. Further, while the federal government will cover 80 percent of the cost of a highway project, it will only pay for up to 50 percent of the cost of a transit project.

With limited funding for transit and the national rail network and federal dollars for walking and biking overwhelmed by the billions spent on highways, federal policy is designed to keep us in our cars. Further, highway funding is distributed by Congress to states based on how much fuel is burned. The more gas is burned in a state, the more money states get to spend on highways. It should hardly be surprising that this has forced people to drive more over the past decade while making the climate impacts of transportation worse.

When you consider U.S. transportation policy in light of the existential crisis that climate change poses, it starts to look pretty asinine.

Access to a better future

Getting where you need to go shouldn’t always require a car, but we’ve designed our communities to prioritize car travel over everything else. With nearly half of all car trips three miles or less, many trips could be easily traversed by foot, bicycle, or transit. But the way we build roads to prioritize high-speed driving makes shorter walking, bicycling, or transit trips unsafe, unpleasant, or impossible.

It’s time that we stop prioritizing expansion over maintenance. It’s time for a paradigm shift. Cars certainly have a place in our transportation system, but our climate simply cannot sustain a system that rewards more and more driving. Our communities would be happier, healthier, safer, and more equitable if we built them for people instead of cars.

If we can retire this system that has doubled the country’s amount of driving in just a little over 30 years, we could build a transportation system that would improve access to the places that people need to go and reduce our emissions at the same time. We drove ourselves into this mess; now we’ll have to drive a little less to find our way out of it.

Join us for a Twitter chat about transportation & climate change on Wednesday, September 18 at 2 p.m. ET/11 a.m. PT. @T4America and our cohosts will lead the conversation with a series of questions over the course of an hour. Use #BeyondEVs to tweet you answers.

USDOT touts major investment in infrastructure, but it all goes to highways

The INFRA grant program was intended to repair our crumbling infrastructure. So why is half of the money going toward expanding highways?

The Trump administration recently announced $855 million in infrastructure grants through the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary competitive grant program. INFRA grants have been touted by this administration as a major way the federal government is rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, but after examining the project list, much of the funding is going to highway expansion, not repair.

INFRA Grants, established by the FAST Act in 2015, are supposed to promote regional economic vitality goals and are evaluated by a set of criteria, including the project’s potential for innovation. But we know that highways alone don’t achieve economic vitality and are not innovative investments.

So what kind of infrastructure projects received grants from USDOT? We took a look at the latest round of grants and analyzed the type of projects receiving funding. Of the $855 million awarded in this most recent round, 78 percent, or $667 million, went to highway projects and only a fraction went to projects that contained a multimodal or resiliency component as described in the project fact sheets.

And while politicians and policymakers continue to pay lip service to the notion of prioritizing repair and “fix-it-first,” we continue to have little to show for all the rhetoric. Repair Priorities showed that states are spending just as much on expansion as repair with their core federal transportation dollars. That trend extends to these INFRA grants, where about equal amounts were given to projects that expanded or added new capacity as repaired existing roads and bridges.

As with the BUILD grant program, the Trump administration is also steering a greater share of this program’s dollars toward rural areas. Though 25 percent of the INFRA program’s grants are required to go to rural projects, the USDOT has far exceeded that requirement with 54 percent of all funding going toward rural areas in this most recent round of grants. Funding only road projects in rural areas, rather than innovative multimodal projects, leaves many of these communities without transportation options and stuck in their cars.

The INFRA grants announcement is unfortunately another example of USDOT prioritizing building more highways over multimodal investment. States are already guaranteed over $40 billion in federal funding for highways, but too many states spend that on expanding highways rather than maintaining what they already have.

And just like with the BUILD program, this begs the obvious question: Why use a new, flexible, competitive grant program ostensibly for “fixing our nation’s infrastructure” (as DOT says) merely to fund new highways when highways already receive billions in dedicated federal funding?

If DOT does want to “repair our crumbling infrastructure,” a decent start would be to award 100% of INFRA grants towards projects that actually prioritize repair. And perhaps after that, Congress could take the logical step of requiring states to actually reduce their maintenance and repair backlogs rather than creating new grant programs to fulfill what should be a core function of the overall federal program: taking care of our existing assets.

House oversight hearing on transit grants left unanswered questions

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 16, to question the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) about its ongoing failure to release billions of congressionally-appropriated funds for local transit construction projects in a timely fashion. We still have questions.

A platform at Los Angeles’ Union Station, with a subway train arriving in the distance. LA Metro’s Purple Line has been waiting for allocated funding from the FTA since November 2018.

While Acting FTA Administrator K. Jane Williams provided some answers to the numerous good questions from members of Congress about the impacts of FTA’s slow-walking of construction grant agreements, we came away from the hearing with more questions than answers about the FTA’s process.

What’s causing the delays?

In our last blog post on the hearing, we noted that Williams was asked very directly about delays for transit projects. She gave a carefully-worded answer, stating “there is not one single project waiting for my action as I sit here today.”

It may be true that there’s nothing sitting on her desk at this moment. But projects are certainly being held up at various stages in the pipeline; local communities, Congress, and the public just don’t know why. While projects sponsors have to turn in paperwork correctly and on time, it’s literally FTA’s job to do everything they can to help projects progress efficiently through the pipeline. If there are significant delays, it’s unlikely that it’s resulting from every single project sponsor failing to turn in their homework. At some point the spotlight has to shine on FTA’s role with the delays.

There are many ways that the FTA could be slowing down a project that prevents it from even getting to the point where it would be waiting for the Acting Administrator’s signature. That’s really just the last step before it goes to the Secretary for approval.¹ In addition, local communities have told us about poor or non-existent communication, unexplained delays, and bizarre requests for information from the FTA, all of which could be slowing projects down.

The FTA has also changed a small but significant rule in the middle of the game, upending historical precedent that quite logically allowed local funds used to repay federal loans to count toward the local contribution to the project. That makes sense: For the handful of transit projects partially financed by a federal loan from another program, the federal government gets repaid and the local dollars are the ones actually spent. Now communities will have to scramble to come up with more cash to pay back federal loans and also fulfill their local matches.

How long should a project have to wait after FTA’s “allocation” announcements to sign a grant agreement?

Both the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Red and Blue Line Platform Extensions and the Minneapolis Orange Line BRT received an allocation for their project back in November 2018. But as we’ve repeatedly pointed out, these misleading allocation announcements do not mean that these communities received funds for their projects or signed a grant agreement.

In the hearing, Acting Administrator Williams claimed that an allocation was their way of signaling that the project would receive a grant. But how long should communities be expected to wait after an allocation? Dallas and Minneapolis eventually received their grants this summer, three quarters of a year after the allocation. The money was just sitting there for them, waiting to be given out. The Tempe Streetcar project in Arizona and the LA Westside Purple Line also received allocations in November 2018, but still haven’t received their grant agreements. There should be a deadline for the FTA to sign a grant agreement after an allocation, as well as clear communication about what to expect, so communities can plan for when they’ll receive their money.

And what about that $500 million for new projects?

This administration made their feelings about funding transit known when they tried to eliminate the program outright in consecutive years by requesting $0 for new projects and suggested that transit was only a local concern. In his most recent budget request, President Trump requested just $500 million for new projects. Asked to justify this seemingly arbitrary figure at the hearing, Acting Administrator Williams responded by explaining that the FTA only expected $500 million-worth of projects would be ready for funding.

The FTA controls when projects will be ready. If the FTA is only expecting $500 million worth of new projects, then FTA is just failing to do its job.

Just $500 million? Seems like a strangely round number. In reality, there are dozens of projects in the pipeline waiting for funding that, collectively, are seeking a lot more than $500 million. As we explained above, the FTA has an immense amount of control over when projects will be ready, and if the FTA is only expecting $500 million worth of new projects, then FTA is just failing to do its job.

The FTA certainly has some idea of which projects will be ready for a grant agreement and when, but they are failing to publicize this information. The FTA has broken with precedent and no longer provides Congress and the public with annual reports clearly detailing which new projects will receive funding that year and when. This makes it impossible for communities, the public, or their representatives in Congress to know where their projects stand and makes it nearly impossible to hold FTA accountable for keeping to their timeline.

The hearing underscored the fact that this administration at FTA needs to be far more transparent about this lone federal program dedicated to building new transit systems and expanding/improving existing ones. FTA should do so without having to be called before Congress to answer questions that they should be answering via clear public reports, easily accessible information on their website about each project, and detailed reports to Congress about where projects are in the process on the way to being approved and getting underway.

Mayors tell the Senate that transit, biking, and walking are climate change solutions

Testimonies from mayors at a recent Senate hearing showed that cities understand that reducing driving and expanding other transportation options is key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and boosting local economies at the same time.

Walking in Southeast Portland. Photo by James Carnes.

Last week, the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis held their first hearing, which focused on what cities across the country are doing to combat and adapt to climate change. In their testimonies, mayors from Atlanta, Honolulu, St. Paul, Pittsburgh, and Portland, OR highlighted the need to reduce emissions from transportation and maintain and expand their existing transit systems.

Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing 29 percent of the United States’ total GHG emissions. While states and cities are setting ambitious climate goals to reduce their emissions and to even achieve net-zero emissions, many are finding that they will not be able to achieve those goals without reducing emissions from the transportation sector. The best way to do that isn’t just switching to electric vehicles, but by also reducing how much people drive, or vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

During the hearing, it was clear that cities recognize the need to prioritize biking, walking, and transit as a way to both reduce emissions and boost their economies. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler hit on the connection between climate change and transportation, testifying that “switching to riding public transportation is one of the most effective actions individuals can take to reduce their carbon footprint. In the Portland region, there is 60 percent less carbon emitted for each mile taken on public transit, compared to driving alone.”

Honolulu came to a similar conclusion, with Mayor Kirk Caldwell stating that in order to meet their GHG reduction goals, they need to shift the transportation system towards “more biking, walking, mass transit, renewable fueled vehicles, and other new mobility options.” A recent report from Smart Growth America and Rhodium Group found the same thing. In order for Hawaii to meet its ambitious climate goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2045, it will need to improve transit and land use to encourage walking and biking.

But the mayors weren’t just talk: they highlighted actions their cities are taking to improve biking, walking, and transit. St. Paul is working on “improving pedestrian and bike infrastructure to make it safer and easier to get around” and that Honolulu is “investing significant political and financial capital into transformational projects with high short-term costs and long-term gains, (e.g., rail, Complete Streets, bike lanes, electric buses).” Mayor Wheeler of Portland spoke extensively on the city’s push to “make walking, biking, and using public transit safer and more attractive to maximize the use of our limited road space and help the entire road system work more efficiently.”

What should the federal government’s role be?

This hearing was meant to showcase what cities are doing to become more resilient, but it also offered a chance for cities to tell the federal government what they need in order to achieve ambitious climate goals. As expected, much of it came down to funding.

Mayor Wheeler emphasized the need for a reliable federal partner in funding multi-modal transportation networks, stating that his city “continues to suffer from a severe shortage of transportation funding, even as local voters and state governments have recently increased transportation funding.” He encouraged the continued funding of the FTA’s Capital Investment Grant Program (CIG) and the BUILD program. As we saw during an oversight hearing this week on the FTA’s administration of the CIG program, there is a growing demand for federal funding of transit projects in a timely and transparent manner.

Atlanta also needs additional funding to build out their transit system. Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms testified, “Atlanta taxpayers have also voted with their pocketbooks to build out sidewalks and last-mile connectivity to our transit system” in a recent election. The city is now moving forward with a $2.7 billion expansion of their transit system that will give people more transportation options and increase access to 350,000 jobs. Mayor Melvin Carter of St. Paul asked for the federal government to “help us build for the 21st century, with major investments in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure.”

Taxpayers in these cities and others across the country are willing to pay more for better transportation. Unfortunately, the federal government spends the vast majority of its resources on expanding highways—exacerbating the climate crisis—while transit funding gets much less funding and there are many more hoops communities must jump through to access it.

To wrest some of the funding away from building more highways and provide cities and towns with more flexibility in their spending, Mayor Caldwell explicitly encouraged the senators to support the Complete Streets Act of 2019, which was recently introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). The legislation would require states to set aside money for Complete Streets projects, create a statewide program to award the money (and provide technical support), and adopt design standards that support safer, complete streets.

Cities get it

Cities understand that improving transportation infrastructure can have a wide range of benefits. Creating better and more connected multimodal transit systems not only reduces emissions, but it also enables people to move quickly and safely within cities and promotes vibrant economies. Much of the national discourse on reducing emissions from transportation counts on electric vehicles saving us, but cities know that’s simply not enough. Providing transit, safe bike infrastructure, and walkable areas is just as important and the federal government has an important role in helping our country rise to meet that challenge. Mayor Wheeler summed it up best: “The investments that have helped reduce carbon emissions are also what make people want to live, work, and play.”

House transportation appropriations bill repudiates administration effort to eliminate transit funding

The House took their first step toward approving a transportation funding bill for the next fiscal year (FY20), and it contains mostly good news for transportation, as well as another repudiation of the administration’s attempts to eliminate funds for expanding and improving transit.

The annual Transportation Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill—known as T-HUD—was released yesterday and approved this morning by the House Committee on Appropriations THUD subcommittee. The annual spending bill contains good news for transportation with some programs receiving an increase in funding over last year. It provides solid funding for the transit Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program and the competitive Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program. The bill also allocates new resources for research into emerging technologies and prioritizes assistance for vulnerable populations.

T4America worked with Members of Congress to secure a number of policy objectives in this bill, including several important improvements to the BUILD program, changes to the transit capital (CIG) program to encourage FTA to get projects moving, and continued robust funding for several passenger rail programs. T4America members can read a detailed summary below:

[member_content]This member-exclusive memo describes the full details in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) FY 2020 appropriations bill approved by subcommittee. [/member_content]

Transit

The bill rejects the administration’s proposed cut of more than $1 billion and provides the FAST Act authorized level of $2.3 billion for the transit capital program (CIG)— which provides funding for local communities to build major new public transit projects or expand existing service. While this represents a $251 million decrease compared to the amount allocated in 2019, it’s sufficient to meet the obligations to existing projects while also advancing new projects.

The biggest news on this front is that the bill again requires the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to obligate 80 percent of the allocated funds by the end of the following calendar year (2021) with an aim to force the FTA to advance the deserving projects waiting in the pipeline. Our Stuck in the Station tracker has chronicled how the Trump administration has been slow to spend appropriated dollars through this program. The bill also goes a step further by requiring any unobligated funds (after the 2021 deadline) to be immediately awarded to projects in the pipeline, an effort to prevent the FTA from simply sitting on the money.

The bill also provides $10.8 billion to transit formula programs as authorized by the FAST Act, including funding for bus and bus facilities, no- and low-emission buses, and new competitive grants to assist transit programs in areas of persistent poverty.

BUILD/TIGER

The House bill directs $1 billion to the BUILD program (formerly known as TIGER grant program). As we’ve chronicled, the U.S. Department of Transportation has effectively turned this formerly innovative program, created to advance complex, hard-to-fund projects, into little more than a rural roads program, dramatically undercutting both its intent and utility. The important news here is that several of the reforms T4America proposed for BUILD were included in this House bill:

Setting aside $15 million for planning grants and requiring the Secretary to award planning grants with an emphasis on transit, transit-oriented development, and multi-modal projects;
Doubling the maximum award to $50 million;
Considering the benefits of a project beyond its physical location in an urban or rural area to the fullest extent to include all relevant geographic areas.

In addition, the House bill also sets aside $20 million within BUILD for the planning, preparation or design of projects in areas of persistent poverty.

Passenger rail

The House bill continues to provide support for many important programs which fund existing and expanded passenger rail service. Funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor increased by $50 million over FY19 while the national network is funded at $1.291 billion, the same level as FY19.

The news was mixed for the two programs that provide the bulk of competitive capital grants and operating support to improve service, upgrade old equipment, and grow passenger rail service nationwide. The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement (CRISI) Grants Program is funded at $350 million, $20 million more than the FAST Act authorized level, and includes a new set aside ($55 million) for “the acquisition of rights of-way, track, or track structure” to support the development of new intercity passenger rail service routes. Unfortunately, the bill doesn’t provide any funding for the Restoration and Enhancement Grants (R&E) program, which was authorized to receive $20 million each each under the FAST Act. We’re hoping the Senate bill will recognize the importance of these programs and provide funding to the R&E program.

What’s next for 2020 appropriations?

With the subcommittee markup wrapped up now, it is expected to be considered by the full Appropriations Committee in the coming weeks and then the full House by the end of June. The Senate has yet to introduce its version of this bill, but we expect that to happen sometime in the next few weeks. T4America will continue keeping a close watch as the critical annual FY20 spending bill progresses.

Key programs

In millions of dollars

Funds by program	FY18 enacted	FY19 enacted	President’s FY20 budget	House FY20 appropriations
Formula funds (Mass Transit Account)	$9,733	$9,900	$9,940	$10,800
Capital Investment Grants	$2,600	$2,552	$1,046	$2,301
BUILD (formerly TIGER)	$1,500	$900	$0	$1,000
Amtrak (Northeast Corridor)	$650	$650	$200	$700
Amtrak (national network)	$1,292	$1,291	$538	$1,291
Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair	$250	$400	$0	$350
Consolidated Rail Infrastructure & Safety Improvement Grants	$593	$255	$0	$350
Restoration & Enhancement Grants	$20	$5	$0	$0