Skip to main content

Author Archives: Jenna Fortunati

We’re going to need a second Infrastructure Forum

This past Sunday, four presidential candidates gathered in Las Vegas to talk about infrastructure. It was a rare opportunity to ask the politicians vying for our nation’s top office critical questions—and the moderators completely blew it. 

It could have been great. But it was not. 

This past weekend, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, and Tom Steyer took to the stage at the University of Nevada for the Infrastructure Forum, an event organized by United for Infrastructure and a suite of transportation unions and associations. This wasn’t the first forum of the race focused on a specific issue, but it was the first—and so far the only planned—forum focused on infrastructure. We are grateful that United for Infrastructure took up the mantle to make it happen. 

The word “infrastructure” comes up in many presidential candidates’ stump speeches, but the mention doesn’t go much further than the need to “build it.” We were looking forward to hearing more about candidates’ transportation goals and the policies they would propose to get us there. (We submitted a ton of questions to the forum—thank you to United for Infrastructure for soliciting questions—but we especially wanted the candidates to answer these three.) 

Unfortunately, Infrastructure Forum moderators failed to ask anything of substance. Our questions about maintenance, safety, and access were absent as were any meaty questions about the candidates’ plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Instead of asking probing questions on these issues, the Wall Street Journal reporters who moderated the forum wanted to know what superficial fixes candidates would make to address the problems our broken federal transportation policy causes—and candidates largely kept their answers superficial. 

For example: the moderators asked every candidate if they would “prioritize maintaining the existing infrastructure or build a new, green transportation system.” The focus on fixing our infrastructure before building anything new is good (it’s the  first of our three principles for transportation policy), but this framing presents a false dichotomy. As we found in our report Repair Priorities, states often build new highways or widen existing ones with federal transportation funding instead of maintaining existing roadways. Increasing roadway capacity actually makes traffic worse, increasing driving and emissions. Maintaining our existing roadways is a step towards a new, green transportation system: maintenance and reduced emissions can go hand in hand. Unless this was meant to be a trick question, the moderators failed here.

But at least maintenance got mentioned. Our other two principles—prioritizing safety over speed and connecting people to jobs and services (two things our transportation program currently does not do)—did not come up at all in moderators’ questions or candidates’ answers. 

To their credit, the moderators did ask about climate change, but not about addressing climate in any meaningful way. As we know, federal transportation policy itself guarantees increasing greenhouse gas emissions by blindly pouring money into new roads, but if you didn’t already know that you certainly didn’t learn it watching this forum. Any transportation policy meant to reduce emissions has to reduce driving—but the moderators kept their questioning and candidates kept their answers to what kinds of electric vehicle subsidies they would propose, and if they “believe” in rail. (What is there to believe? Rail exists!) 

Another frustrating line of questioning: The moderators kept asking candidates how they would pay for their infrastructure proposals before asking what they’re even proposing. This is more than just our pet peeve—it’s why we’re no longer advocating for Congress to increase transportation funding. On what other issues are people told the price before they know what they’re buying? (It’s not just us. Polling from the infrastructure campaign Build Together found that 63 percent of voters believe that the federal governments’ lack of vision for infrastructure policy is a bigger problem than the amount spent on infrastructure.) 

Lackluster questions breed lackluster answers, but the candidates offered at least some insight into their proposals. Buttigieg was the only candidate that said the baseline transportation program needs to change, while Klobuchar and Biden think money is infinite and priorities unnecessary.  Steyer—the self-professed “climate candidate”—wants to fight climate change by bringing back Cash for Clunkers, and, well, we hate to break it to him, but that won’t be enough to reduce our emissions. 

We need a second Infrastructure Forum. One where candidates are actually asked how their infrastructure proposals align with their goals for the country, because “infrastructure” doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Infrastructure determines where you work, how healthy you are, and what your children can achieve. Infrastructure determines your quality of life. It’s time we asked presidential candidates real questions about it. 

In case you missed it: we scored every leading presidential candidates’ infrastructure proposal on how well they achieve our three principles for transportation policy. Check it out here!

Transportation is changing, but curbs are not: Lessons from the first Smart Cities Collaborative 2020 meeting

The third year of the Smart Cities Collaborative is off to a strong start. Last week, Transportation for America brought together the three pilot cities in the Collaborative to work through devising and designing strong curbside management pilots.

A break-out session at the first Smart Cities Collaborative meeting in Boston.

In 2018—when the last Smart Cities Collaborative wrapped up—electric scooter-sharing was brand new. Now, scooters, bikeshare, rideshare, and other mobility trends have gained stronger footholds in cities, becoming important features of the transportation ecosystem. 

But while these new technologies are changing transportation, one thing has stayed the same: the way we use curbs. 

Curbs are magical places where land use and transportation collide, often times making them cities’ most valuable assets. Which is why the 2020 Collaborative—which kicked off last week in Boston—is focused on developing better curbside management strategies through pilot projects. 

Three of the 17 cities participating in the 2020 Collaborative—Bellevue, WA; Boston, MA; and Minneapolis, MN—will launch curbside management pilots later this year. These cities’ teams met with us in Boston to brainstorm how they can make their pilots successful and scale what they learn across their cities. 

The current state of the curb

Managing curb space can be a work-in-progress. A city official puts “pedestrian zone” signs that had been moved back in their rightful places.

Curbs are more valuable now than ever before, according to Cityfi’s Camron Bridgeford. T4America teamed up with Cityfi to create the curriculum for the Collaborative—which inevitably began with what makes curbs so special in the first place. 

It comes down to simple economics: The fixed supply of curb space and the number of competing demands increases curbs’ value. For example, curbs are key to the movement of goods and people, as well as used for transit, storage, short-term parking, construction, streetscaping (like street trees), tactical urbanism, and snow removal, but there are only so many curbs. With the recent (and growing) number of new mobility technologies, it is a critical moment for cities to better leverage their curbs to advance the public good. 

For cities considering curbside management pilots, Camron recommends considering the following factors: pricing, design and way-finding, demand and access, operations and enforcement, partnerships, data, and performance measures. 

The importance of outreach

In many places, demands on curb space are increasing faster than public perception of what curbs are and what they could be. This poses a huge hurdle for cities considering changing their curbside management policies: explaining what they’re doing to people accustomed to traditional uses of curb space, such as on-street parking. 

Communicating the importance of rethinking streetscapes that haven’t changed in decades calls for more than just one public meeting. Cities need to show people what different uses of curb spaces look like, and for that they need creative communication strategies. 

The Collaborative came up with a few communication ideas, such as prioritizing stories over data (what’s more compelling: statistics or a tale of someone who could now get to work safely because of a protected bike lane?) and using pilots themselves as an outreach tool—because what’s a better way to explain what you want to achieve city-wide than showing people how it works on one block? 

Outreach is critical to successful pilot projects and policy implementation. If the public isn’t on board, your project will never leave the station. 

Data with a purpose

Smart Cities Collaborative co-director Emiko Atherton assists a team in a brainstorming session.

The advent of new mobility technologies is a huge opportunity for cities to learn more about how people get around by all modes of travel. But data is useless if cities don’t determine what they want to achieve with it. 

T4America’s director Beth Osborne took Bellevue, Boston, and Minneapolis on a rhetorical journey to determine why they want to collect mobility data in the first place. That journey started with identifying a problem. 

For example: many cities experience traffic back-ups that occur when a delivery vehicle double-parks. Most people take for granted that back-ups are bad, but Beth asked our three cities: why are these back-ups a problem? 

The cities answered: back-ups are bad because they increase vehicle and bus travel times and make streets unsafe for people walking and biking, as drivers double-parking or stuck in traffic might behave in unpredictable ways. That led the cities to their problem statement: We need to reduce incidences of double-parking in order to improve safety and travel times. 

By always asking “why,” cities can make sure that the data they collect aligns with their goals. 

What’s next for the Collaborative?

Between now and May, Bellevue, Boston, and Minneapolis will work on launching their curbside management pilots. This spring, we’ll gather with them and the 14 “peer” cities in the Collaborative in Bellevue to learn more about strategies for leveraging curb space. 

Step 1: Electric vehicle chargers. Step 2: Real structural reform.

Last week, Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Andy Levin (MI-9) released the “Electric Vehicle Freedom Act,” a bill that would aim to “establish a nationwide electric vehicle charging network within five years.” The creativity behind this bill is exactly what Congress needs—we just need to focus on more than EVs.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at SXSW 2019. Photo by NRKBeta on Flickr’s Creative Commons

You’ve (hopefully) heard it all before: transportation accounts for the largest share of carbon emissions in the United States, and those emissions are rising—even as other sectors have improved. 

Tackling those rising emissions is the goal of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Andy Levin’s  new “Electric Vehicle Freedom Act.” The bill—released in tandem with the House majority’s new infrastructure framework—would build an electric vehicle charging network along the nation’s highways, according to the Hill. 

It’s rare to see a bill that uses transportation funding for something brand new, like EV charging. On that front, this bill is a clear winner. Now it’s time for Reps. AOC and Levin to completely rethink the transportation program overall—because the structure of the program itself sets the U.S. on a course to increase transportation emissions. 

Like a terrible prophecy, the federal transportation program spends billions every year to build new highways, encouraging more and more driving. With the limited funding for transit, rail, walking and biking overwhelmed by the billions spent on highways, federal policy is designed to keep us in our cars (which generates more congestion and pollution). 

More and more driving negates any emissions reductions from electric vehicles because the fleet of U.S. vehicles isn’t turning electric as quickly as vehicle miles traveled are increasing. Despite an admirable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet from 1990-2016, emissions still rose by 21 percent because driving increased by 50 percent in that same period.

Electric vehicles are absolutely necessary to decrease our emissions, but they aren’t enough. We need to drive less. That means a complete restructuring of a federal transportation program built to increase driving. We would love to work with Reps. AOC and Levin on crafting a forward thinking transportation bill that will put the entire country on a path to truly lower carbon emissions.

T4America selects 3 cities to launch curbside management pilots

The three pilot cities. From left: Boston, Bellevue, and Minneapolis

WASHINGTON, DC – Transportation for America (T4America) is thrilled to announce that it has awarded three cities with funding and support to complete curbside management pilot projects. The three cities are Bellevue, WA; Boston, MA; and Minneapolis, MN. 

The awards are a new component of T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative. Now in its third cohort, the Collaborative is a year-long program for public sector transportation leaders to share their experiences with new mobility technologies and develop best practices to ensure that these services improve city life. 

“The demands on curb space are rapidly increasing, but the policies and tools on how to share this limited resource are not, said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “We’re excited to work with these three cities to put what we’ve learned from the past two cohorts into practice and identify best practices and guidelines for better curbside management.”

T4America believes that peer-learning is the most valuable part of the Smart Cities Collaborative, which is why the three “pilot cities” will be joined by participants from over 10 other cities. The final list of cities participating as these “peer cities” will be announced next week. 

“We are proud to be selected as one of only three cities nationwide focusing on how to best manage curbside space so that it meets the current and future needs of all users of city streets,” said Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh. “I am encouraged that several of our recent efforts, such as piloting pick up and drop off space for rideshares and implementing performance parking, proved Boston’s willingness to find innovative solutions to our transportation challenges and helped to secure our participation in this joint effort.”  

“With rapidly increasing job and population growth in Bellevue, managing the city’s curbside space is becoming increasingly important,” said Transportation Director Andrew Singelakis. “Participating in the Smart Cities Collaborative will help us meet this challenge. We’re honored to be selected as a pilot city and grateful for the strong support we received from King County Metro, Bellevue Downtown Association, Bellevue Chamber of Commerce and others.”

“Minneapolis is proud to continue our partnership with T4America and the Smart Cities Collaborative, which has helped us develop capacity to harness technology to reach our transportation goals, “ said Robin Hutcheson, Minneapolis Public Works Director. “We are excited to be selected as one of three pilot cities in the 2020 cohort.  With this partnership and assistance we will develop and implement strategies to address the changing nature of curbside use, as well as learn from and share our learnings with the other participating cities.”

The third round will officially begin in February 2020. Learn more about the Smart Cities Collaborative. 

Here’s what happens when Jarrett Walker takes over your Twitter account

A week ago, we gave the experts at Jarrett Walker + Associates the keys to our Twitter account to explain what a transportation system oriented around improving people’s access to jobs and services (not increasing vehicle speed) actually looks like. 

Last week was “Connecting people to jobs and services week” on our blog, where we focused on explaining our third principle for transportation investment. As we learned when brainstorming ideas for the blog for this week, the concept of measuring transportation success by access, not vehicle speed is often a tricky one for people to wrap their heads around.

So who better to explain how far we’ve deviated from transportation’s purpose—to connect people to opportunity—and how to get back on track than transit planner Jarrett Walker? Walker and his team are famous for communicating the “geometric truth” (as our outreach director Chris Rall calls it) of transit projects, helping cities across the world align their land use with transit goals.

Check out the highlights of the takeover below. And tune into our Twitter account for more takeovers and tweet chats!

“Voluntary safety assessments” for automated vehicles will result in more deaths

The National Transportation Safety Board agrees with T4America on automated vehicle safety: making safety assessments “voluntary” utterly fails to ensure public safety—and at least one person has already died as a result. The federal government’s current hands-off approach is unsafe for everyone, especially those outside of a car. 

A dangerous intersection in Scottsdale, AZ, near Tempe. Photo by Lawrence G. Miller on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its findings on Uber’s fatal 2018 Arizona crash, where 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg was killed by an automated vehicle (AV) while crossing the street with her bike. 

“When companies test automated vehicles (AVs) without minimum safety standards to guide them, we are virtually guaranteeing that people will be killed unnecessarily by this technology —though heralded by boosters as the technology that will end all traffic deaths,” said T4America director Beth Osborne. “While Uber was at fault in this tragic death, we are also encouraged to see a federal agency take a hard look at the underlying causes, namely the lack of uniform safety standards and the willingness of those charged with protecting the public to abdicate that responsibility and allow these companies to set the rules.” 

With no safety performance standards to speak of, Arizona—through an executive order from the governor—granted the ride-hail company the right to test AVs on all public roads, so long as a human driver is present to take over in emergencies. But that sole safety requirement failed Herzberg in numerous ways, the NTSB announced on Wednesday.  

At the time of the crash, the human safety driver was watching a video on her phone—violating the company’s policy for that position. But according to the NTSB, “The federal government also bore its share of responsibility for failing to better regulate autonomous car operations,” writes the Verge reporter Andrew J. Hawkins. T4America would add that the State of Arizona might have established such a standard before allowing AVs on their streets but similarly failed.

During the hearing this week, NTSB board member Jennifer Homendy further berated the federal government’s safety ineptitude, calling NHTSA’s automated vehicle safety plan “actually laughable. …They should rename it a Vision for Lax Safety,” she said.

The nation’s foremost transportation safety experts just called our automated vehicle regulations “laughable.” So what is Congress doing about it? Nothing. 

Fearing another safety-lite bill like the AV START Act—which lacked any safety performance standards, and merely contained “voluntary” safety assessments from automakers—Transportation for America and 46 other national groups wrote a letter to Congress spelling out exactly what needs to be in any future AV legislation to guarantee that this fledgling technology doesn’t kill people. That means concrete, enforceable performance standards, and the NTSB agrees. Such standards include “vision tests” to ensure an AV can properly identify and respond to its surroundings—including people crossing the street with their bikes, like Herzberg. (Uber’s vehicle was shockingly not even programmed to recognize Herzberg in this situation.) It also includes requirements that all AVs are built with proven safety technologies, like automatic emergency braking. 

We sent that letter in August. This month, congressional committees released three sections of a forthcoming AV bill, which show that Congress is still not getting the message and is failing to prioritize safety above all else.  

As a response, our coalition of national groups sent another letter to Congress criticizing the decision not to release the full bill and highlighting where these three sections failed. For example, the following essential components were not included in the released section: any mandatory rulemakings for necessary safety features to safeguard motorists and other road users; provisions for securing this advanced technology from cyberattacks; an explanation of how federal preemption of state laws would be avoided; how local policy control for safety on the roads would be ensured; a data sharing framework for consumers, cities, states, law enforcement, and federal regulators; adequate resources for NHTSA; and definitions of the terms used in the sections, among other issues.

Transportation for America, the 46 other national groups who joined us to fight for safety, and the NTSB agree that nobody wins when safety isn’t a priority. 

The best thing about the Smart Cities Collaborative is the peer-learning, says Oakland’s Warren Logan

Next January marks the third cohort for T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative. This time around, a steering committee of former Collaborative members is helping us shape the program. Warren Logan, the Policy Director of Mobility and Interagency Relations at Oakland Mayor’s Office, talked with us about what makes the Smart Cities Collaborative so valuable to city officials. 

Transportation for America: What’s the hardest part about working on new mobility at the city level? 

Warren Logan, Policy Director of Mobility and Interagency Relations at Oakland Mayor’s Office

Warren Logan: *Laughs* There are two major challenges. One is that city government isn’t equipped to manage innovation. We’re good at working slowly to maintain safety, order and equitable access. New mobility companies challenge the city, and sometimes actively try to avoid regulation. 

Secondly, the people who work in government are not the target audience for these kind of mobility services. This is a huge cultural challenge. If you look at the demographics of people who use scooters, bikeshare, or any kind of mobility through their smartphones, it’s people between the ages of 21 and 35. These people are more affluent, more flexible, and they live downtown—they’re the new urban class that we’re seeing shift into cities in the greater part of America. 

The people who you might assume work in high levels of government are older, more conservative, and more averse to risk. I saw this frequently in San Francisco, where I used to work: people who have never ridden a scooter but want to regulate them a particular way. This fundamentally underscores the challenge. If you haven’t used it, you should try it out first before regulating. In Oakland, where I now work, our scooter permitting policy requires that city staff test them out. We need to understand scooter users.

T4America: What part of the Smart Cities Collaborative did you find most valuable? 

WL: The Collaborative is one part therapy, one part workshop. It’s really helpful to be in a room full of people facing the same challenges and working towards the same goal. 

Warren Logan talking with former colleagues and staff from the Bay Area during the 2018 Smart Cities Collaborative.

One thing that’s really challenging about new mobility is that each city has three full-time staff—at best—working on this subject. It’s challenging for the one mobility person embedded in parking management to know what the right, innovative answer is when they’re surrounded by people focused on only parking. 

That’s what makes the Collaborative so valuable: The diversity of cities—blue, red, big, small, coastal, southern, Midwestern—results in a wealth of information and an incredible alumni network. It’s amazing to be able to call up someone from another city, talk about the problem you’re experiencing for 30 minutes, and then solve it, right there. 

T4America: How did you bring what you learned at the Collaborative to San Francisco? And now to Oakland?

WL: San Francisco is on the cutting edge of a lot of new mobility issues, so there’s this understandable mentality that we have to be the first ones to solve a problem. But what’s interesting is that since shared mobility launchd in a lot of places really quickly, we’re not the biggest fish in the pond. 

More importantly, as I participated in the Collaborative for a while, we found that this model—this permitting structure that we all backed into as the way to manage shared mobility—might not be perfect. Maybe we would have been better off if we chose a public-private partnership or a franchise model. What I brought back to San Francisco, and now to Oakland, is a way to explore questions that I never thought of before, and the very rich contacts from all these cities to explore these solutions. 

Interesting in sponsoring the Smart Cities Collaborative? Learn more here. 

Some scenes from the final meeting of the 2018 Smart Cities Collaborative

Our seven favorite tweets from the #SafetyOverSpeed tweet chat

Last week we hosted a tweet chat to discuss the importance of prioritizing #SafetyOverSpeed, in tandem with our week of blogs discussing our second principle for transportation policy. Here are our seven favorite tweets from the chat. 

Thanks to our tremendous co-hosts for making the Tweet Chat a success: Smart Growth America, the National Complete Streets Coalition, U.S. PIRG, America Walks, the League of American Bicyclists, the National Association of City Transportation Officials, and Strong Towns.

Missed Transportation for America’s Safety over Speed blog posts? Check them out.

Now to our favorite questions!

Why are there more deaths on arterials—”stroads” in the words of Strong Towns—than on highways with speed limits as high as 70 mph?

Why are most local and arterial roads—particularly in sprawling suburbs and cities—still being designed for high speeds? 

Lowering speed limits alone does little to reduce speeds. How can we better slow vehicles on local and arterial roads? 

According to Dangerous By Design, older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income communities are disproportionately represented in fatal pedestrian crashes. Why, and how can we fix this?

What are some economic benefits of slowing down streets? 

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions. How can lowering speeds help reduce those emissions?

Speed is often considered a local and state issue. Why should the feds get involved, and how can they support communities that make their streets safer?

Which street is the most dangerously-designed? You decide!

It’s time to vote! Throughout the week, readers sent us photos of streets that are designed for speeds far higher than the posted speed limit or where the speed limit is way too high for the context. Today (Friday, Nov. 8), you can vote for the worst offender on Twitter. 

It’s been #SafetyOverSpeed week here at Transportation for America, where we’ve been taking a deep dive on our second principle for transportation policy: design for safety over speed. We’ve discussed how slip lanes would never exist if we prioritized safety over speed; how businesses can benefit from lower speeds; how walkability improves transit service; how some people are hurt more than others when speed is prioritized; and how street design is much more effective than speed limits in lowering speeds.

Now let’s vote!

Photo 1: Missouri Boulevard

Our reader writes: “Missouri Boulevard in Jefferson City, Missouri. 35 mph speed limit, lined with restaurants and stores, bus stops, and supposedly walkable. The two nearest stoplights are over 0.7 miles apart. My neighborhood gets a high walkable score because it is near things, but this is what I have to cross to get to them.”

Photo 2: Bee Ridge Road

This photo came from a blind pedestrian, who wrote that the placement of this utility poll in Sarasota, Florida, makes using the sidewalk incredibly difficult for blind people and people with other disabilities.

Photo 3: James Street

This street in Syracuse, NY has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and a 25 mph school zone. Yet “several weeks ago, a 13-year-old boy was critically injured when he was struck by an SUV attempting to cross James St. after leaving the Lincoln Middle School,” our reader writes. He notes that along with three schools, James Street is lined with “senior living facilities, numerous businesses and social service agencies and several of the city’s few high-rise apartment buildings.”

Which street is the most dangerously-designed? Vote through our Twitter poll.

Competition: Which street is the most dangerously-designed?

This week, we’ll be taking a deep dive on our second principle for transportation policy: design for safety over speed. Throughout the week, send photos of streets in your area that are designed for speeds far higher than the posted speed limit or where the speed limit is way too high for the context. On Friday (Nov. 8), you’ll have a chance to vote for the worst offender.

At slow speeds, cars can mix safely with other road users. High-speed interstates remove conflicts to keep people safe. But when people and high-speed traffic mix, that’s a recipe for disaster.

There’s a difference between the speed limit posted on a road and the speed the road has been designed for. People will drive at the speed they feel comfortable, regardless of the speed limit. Wide, straight lanes with open skies, long blocks, and few traffic signals or stop signs tell drivers it’s okay to go fast. Conversely, narrower lanes, more frequent crossings, and street trees can encourage slower speeds that are more appropriate for developed areas.

Off the interstates, in areas with shops & restaurants, offices, schools, and homes, we should be designing for slower speeds—speeds that keep people walking, biking, or taking transit safe and comfortable. Too often these very streets are designed to encourage high-speed thru traffic and then we wonder why our streets are so dangerous to people walking and biking.

Send us photos of dangerous streets in your area! Email us at jenna.fortunati@t4america.org or tweet your photo(s) to @t4america and tell us a little bit about it. On Friday, we’ll poll our followers to identify the most egregious example of a street that prioritizes speed of people’s safety.

Examples of unsafe streets abound, and it’s not just suburban arterials. Take for example, Georgia Ave NW through the heart of Washington, DC. The posted speed limit is 30mph, but this four-lane, two-way road is arrow straight and drivers rarely travel at or below 30.

Within a few hundred yards of this photo there are laundromats and pharmacies, numerous bars and restaurants, homes for thousands of people, an elementary school, and a church. There’s also a metro stop and a dozen different bus stops—people walking are everywhere. Yet the design of this street clearly prioritizes the speed of car traffic over the safety of everyone else.

We want you to send us photos of streets where cars routinely drive above the speed limit (or where the posted speed limit is way too high) because the street isn’t designed to prioritize safety, or not designed appropriately for its busy context. Snap a photo this week and send them to us with a short description via twitter or email. On Friday, we’ll hold a poll on our Twitter account where you can vote for the worst offenders.

Washington State leads in transportation improvements—one ballot measure could end all that

This November, Washington residents will vote on a ballot measure that would slash available funding for transit agencies as well as road maintenance and safety projects by limiting annual vehicle registration fees to $30 and reducing vehicle taxes.  

As gas tax and other transportation revenue failed to grow the way it used to in the 1990s and 2000s, states started filling those gaps by raising new state funds for transportation. Voters across the country, in places across the political spectrum, have supported increasing taxes to raise funds for transportation projects. In 2015, Washington passed legislation to increase the fuel tax by 11.9¢ per gallon and increase other vehicle fees, raising billions for transportation projects, including $1 billion for transit, pedestrian, and bike projects—and also gave locals more flexibility to raise transit funds through other mechanisms.

In Washington State, a ballot measure this November could change much of that. Initiative 976 seeks to limit annual license fees for vehicles at $30; base vehicle taxes on the Kelley Blue Book value rather than 85 percent of the automaker’s retail price; and repeal transit agencies’ ability to levy motor vehicle excise taxes, according to Ballotpedia. 

This cut to current and future funding would be disastrous all across the state. But perhaps the place most at risk—and the biggest example of a region taking control of its own destiny—is the Puget Sound area of greater Seattle, where voters passed Sound Transit 3 (ST3), a $53.8 billion investment to expand light rail to Everett, Issaquah and Tacoma and Seattle neighborhoods of Ballard and West Seattle, improve bus rapid transit lines, and increase capacity on existing rail lines. 

As the state’s economic engine, the Puget Sound region is choked by traffic that once threatened to hamper its growth and livability. ST3, in combination with local transit investments in Seattle and Snohomish County, put the region on track to develop a robust transit system that gives people an opportunity to avoid crippling congestion. 

I-976 puts this all at risk, as a large portion of the revenue needed to implement ST3 comes from a voter-approved 0.8 percent increase on license fees. I-976 would cut Sound Transit funding for light rail expansion, bus rapid transit and commuter rail in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties by at least $20 billion through 2041, according to Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick. This cut consists of $6.9 billion in lower license fee revenue and $13 billion in higher borrowing costs in part to replace those funds.

Meanwhile, in Spokane, cuts from I-976 would reduce state funding for the Central City Line bus rapid transit project by $11 .7 million, slowing the project considerably.

While clearly anti-transit, I-976 is different than the anti-transit campaign that failed recently in Phoenix. The Phoenix effort aspired to ban all future light rail construction and was supported by funding from the Koch Brothers. In Washington, there’s no news indicating support from the Koch Brothers, and I-976 would cut far more than just transit. For example, communities in central Washington would see street maintenance funding cut substantially, with over $22.5 million cut for a maintenance and safety road project in Wenatchee.

The Seattle Times said it best in its editorial board’s resounding opposition to the ballot initiative: 

Nothing about I-976 is a good idea, in terms of responsible governance or prudent money management. [Tim Eyman, the political activist who sponsored the ballot initiative] asks voters to buy a falsity that there’s some miraculous way to fund our state’s backlog of bridge, road and transit needs. Because the courts cannot end this toxic nonsense quickly enough, voters must reject I-976 themselves.

Washington voters will have a choice on November 5: Pay less in car taxes to spend more time commuting on crumbling roads and bridges and non-existent transit services, or continue to spend money on improving quality of life through smarter transportation investments. 

The Senate’s first transportation reauthorization bill gets an F

EDIT, March 2021: If you represent an organization or are an elected official, please sign our letter urging the Senate to pass a long-term law completely unlike this one—a bill that orients the program transportation program around what counts: getting to where you need to go.

Authorizing federal spending on surface transportation is complicated, with different Congressional committees writing separate portions of the bill. That’s why we’ll score every reauthorization bill by how well it achieves our three simple principles for transportation investment. The America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act fails on all counts. 

With the current authorization for federal transportation spending—the FAST Act—set to expire in 2020, it’s time for Congress to set transportation policy for the next five to six years. Once passed, this legislation will set federal funding levels for transportation for another five to six years.

We’re tired of the same old transportation bills that pump money into building highways at the expense of our crumbling roads and bridges, people’s access to essential jobs and services, and human life. That’s why we’ll score every reauthorization bill on how well they achieve our three simple principles.

By our scorecard, the first reauthorization bill—America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act, which the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee approved in July—gets a big fat F. Here’s why. 

Maintenance

This bill fails to take steps toward cutting our country’s maintenance backlog in half because it contains zero new, binding requirements to ensure that states use federal funds to actually bring their roads and bridges into good condition. The bill provides an additional $32 billion annually—on top of the $40 billion they already receive— for existing road building policy. History has shown that without any requirement to invest in maintenance, many states simply won’t. While the inclusion of a new bridge maintenance program is a welcome step, it’s a relative pittance at just 2 percent of overall funding. 

Speed

We are in the midst of a massive safety crisis for people walking, with an alarming 35 percent increase in people struck and killed by drivers while walking from 2008-2017.  And nearly 40,000 people die each year in traffic crashes.

This bill includes significant new formula and discretionary safety programs and language encouraging states and planning organizations to adopt complete streets designs and plans. However, we’re concerned that these programs will be undercut by substantial funding increases for high speed roadways in the base formulas without any additional constraints to improve safety. Complete streets designs shouldn’t be optional, as this bill considers them. History has shown us that “optional” will result in many states failing to take action to save lives. 

Access

We were happy to see that 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. But a pilot program isn’t enough. Access to jobs and services has to be the core of any transportation authorization. We need to reward the boldness of this pilot proposal by measuring whether all $358 billion in this bill is connecting people to jobs and services. 

Multiple states, including Virginia and Hawaii, have already started prioritizing their spending on projects that improve access. It’s possible—and necessary—to prioritize federal spending this way. We can’t afford another five or six years of wasted investment from using vehicle speed as our outdated measure of success.

Click on any image below to learn more about our brand new principles or download a sharable card

In the San Francisco Chronicle: We need more than electric vehicles

A new opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle explains why electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency aren’t enough to reduce emissions—and how our federal transportation program shoots any climate change effort in the foot. 

Today, a new op-ed from Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne makes the case that instead of putting all of our climate eggs in the electric vehicle basket, the better way to reduce transportation emissions is to “rethink a system that causes us to drive more and more in the first place.”

Transportation emissions are rising, despite gains in electric vehicle adoption and improved fuel efficiency. Beth writes:

Transportation is now the single largest source of climate pollution, and the vast majority of those emissions — 82 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 hikes 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. Plus, electric vehicles are only as clean as what powers the grid, which in most cases means electric cars will still be powered by fossil fuels.

The op-ed is specific to California, but this isn’t a California-specific issue: Our federal transportation program guarantees that driving will increase everywhere. But we can change this. The federal government encourages states and local governments to choose road projects over transit projects by paying for most of road projects, and only half (at most) of transit projects. Beth writes:

The expensive, inequitable and polluting transportation system we have today was created by a series of intentional policy decisions that started at the federal level and trickled down. It’s time to build a transportation system that gives people more options for getting around without guaranteeing more traffic, frustration and emissions — whether we have electric cars or not.

 

Share on Twitter

Because remember, even if we manage to replace every car with an electric vehicle, clean congestion is still congestion.

Read the full op-ed  and then share Beth’s message with on Twitter to help us spread the word!

Behold! The entirety of our #BeyondEVs Tweet Chat

It’s #CoveringClimateNow week, and over 220 media outlets have pledged to devote coverage to climate change. Unfortunately, there’s usually something missing in these important conversations: driving.

Driving makes up most of transportation emissions (and the transportation sector emits more greenhouse gases than any other). And every year, vehicle miles traveled increases. If we don’t do anything to drive a little bit less, we’ll negate all of the benefits from electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency.

It’s time to move #BeyondEVs. We hosted a Tweet Chat yesterday to discuss why we need to reduce vehicle miles traveled, how government policy at all levels can help do this, and the additional benefits of driving less.

Thanks to our tremendous co-hosts for making the Tweet Chat a success: Smart Growth America, America Walks, League of American Bicyclists, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Salud!America, Shared Use Mobility Center, TransitCenter, and U.S. PIRG.

If you’re a journalist or researcher, check out our climate change resources. And everybody stay tuned for a Tweet Chat on October 23rd on why the federal transportation program needs to prioritize maintenance over expanding highways.

Question 1: Electric vehicles are necessary but not sufficient to reduce transportation emissions. What else should we do to move #BeyondEVs and create a cleaner, zero-carbon transportation future?

Question 2: What can make it easier for people to take low-carbon trips by using transit, walking, or biking?

Question 3: What changes do we need (at the federal, state, and/or local level) to place destinations closer to where people live?

Question 4: The feds dedicate the vast majority of transportation money to building highways. How can we better distribute funding to reduce climate pollution?

Question 5: What else is missing from the debate about transportation and climate change?

Question 6: Reducing the amount/length we drive is essential for lowering transportation emissions. What are additional benefits of reducing the distance we drive?

Question 7: The implicit goal of the federal transportation program is to increase and encourage driving, which raises emissions. What would be a better, explicit, stated goal?

Question 1: Electric vehicles are necessary but not sufficient to reduce transportation emissions. What else should we do to move #BeyondEVs and create a cleaner, zero-carbon transportation future?

Back to top of the page

Question 2: What can make it easier for people to take low-carbon trips by using transit, walking, or biking?

Back to top of the page

Question 3: What changes do we need (at the federal, state, and/or local level) to place destinations closer to where people live?

Back to top of the page

Question 4: The feds dedicate the vast majority of transportation money to building highways. How can we better distribute funding to reduce climate pollution?

https://twitter.com/NUMOalliance/status/1174389963967758338

Back to top of the page

Question 5: What else is missing from the debate about transportation and climate change?

Back to top of the page

Question 6: Reducing the amount/length we drive is essential for lowering transportation emissions. What are additional benefits of reducing the distance we drive?

Back to top of the page

Question 7: The implicit goal of the federal transportation program is to increase and encourage driving, which raises emissions. What would be a better, explicit, stated goal?

Back to top of the page

 

Driving less needs to be included in #CoveringClimateNow

still of "cleaner congestion" gif

We’re thrilled that over 220 media outlets have dedicated this week to #CoveringClimateNow. But when it comes to transportation, we’re worried that electric vehicles and improving fuel efficiency—two critical methods of reducing transportation emissions—will get more attention than the simple need to reduce driving overall.

Transportation emissions are rising despite the gains we’re making in electric vehicle adoption and fuel efficiency. That’s because vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have been increasing every single year.

We don’t want VMT to be left out of #CoveringClimateNow. Here are four resources to make covering the need to drive less easier.

  1. Our blog post on how federal transportation policy undermines any progress on climate

  2. Our one-pager on the connection between transportation and climate change

  3. Our one-pager on why electric vehicles and fuel efficiency are not enough on their own to reduce emissions sufficiently.

  4. Our one-pager on how federal transportation policy can address climate change

The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Senate’s long-term transportation bill

Vehicles moving slowly on a congested highway in Seattle. The highway crosses a narrow river.

Last month, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works passed a long-term transportation policy bill. Unfortunately, billions of new dollars for the existing system overshadow its notable new programs, like a climate title and Complete Streets requirements. 

Vehicles moving slowly on a congested highway in Seattle. The highway crosses a narrow river.

Highway traffic in Seattle. Photo by Oran Viriyincy on Flickr.

The transportation authorization bill, known as America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (ATIA), includes a few new, notable, programs related to Transportation for America (T4America) initiatives. But overall, it fails to meaningfully address the maintenance backlog, ensure safety, or create a system built around providing access to jobs and services. 

The new climate and safety programs, while welcome additions, will be undercut by substantial funding increases for high-speed roadways in the base formulas without any additional constraints to improve safety, measure or reduce vehicle miles traveled, and prioritize access to jobs and opportunities. 

The good: A pilot program for transportation accessibility data and Complete Streets requirements

We’ve long advocated for measuring the success of our transportation system based on whether it, and any new investment, improves connections to jobs and important destination by all modes of travel. After all, this should be the goal of transportation. 

That’s why we’re happy that the ATIA includes a provision based on the bipartisan COMMUTE Act. The “Accessibility Data Pilot Program” would establish a pilot program to provide states, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and rural MPOs with the data and training to improve transportation planning by measuring the level of access by multiple transportation modes to important destinations (such as  jobs, health and child care, education, affordable housing, food sources, and connections to transit, bicycling, and ADA compliant sidewalks). This is a small but necessary first step toward reorienting the federal transportation program toward connecting people to jobs and services.

The bill also includes significant new formula and discretionary safety programs and language encouraging states and planning organizations to adopt Complete Streets designs and plans, tactics that are proven to improve safety for all road users. Specifically, the ATIA requires that 2.5 percent of state and MPO planning funds must be used for adopting Complete Streets standards or policies or developing Complete Streets prioritization plans, active transportation plans, transit access plans, transit-oriented development plans, or regional intercity rail plans.

However, historically programs like these are funded at low levels while 10-20 times as much is made available for status quo transportation, and this makes it impossible for these programs to make a mark on the system.  We see the same thing happening here. 

The bad: No requirement to maintain roads 

“We must fix our crumbling infrastructure” is a Washington, DC cliche. But it wouldn’t be a cliche if we actually did it. The ATIA will not be the bill that requires state DOTs to take repair seriously. 

The bill does not include any requirements that the core formulas or new programs must be spent on maintenance instead of expansion. Its only maintenance program—the Competitive Bridge Investment Program—represents a small amount of the overall funding and does nothing to change the way the rest of the formula funds are used. In fact, one of the eligible uses of this maintenance program is to address increasing traffic; this means expanding and widening roads. Further, there is nothing in this program that rewards states for putting more of their other formula funds to maintenance. DOTs get the same amount of money even if they use the rest of their funds for expansion.

Granted, the bill makes funding from some of the new programs eligible for maintenance and limits funding to projects that do not create new single occupancy vehicle capacity. But the maintenance impact of these funds will be limited as they are also available for a variety of other investments. 

The only way to actually reduce our backlog of maintenance needs is to require that funds are spent on maintenance, not anything else, until DOTs make real progress in reducing their backlog. Maintenance is too important to let states and MPOs opt-out.  

T4A expects Congress to design the national transportation program to reduce the maintenance backlog by half in the next six years. We are tired of hearing the same calls for fixing our crumbling roads and bridges as justification for ever more funding before every reauthorization and not seeing substantial progress.

The ugly: Congress has—once again—stuck to the status quo

Redesigning our national transportation policy is a powerful opportunity that comes only once every five years. By choosing what grant programs to invest in, Congress can massively influence what transportation projects states, MPOs, and cities build for decades. 

And once again, Congress missed its window. Despite including a climate title for the first time ever—a huge feat for a Republican-led Senate—and a new safety incentive program, the ATIA puts the bulk of its funding into programs that incentivize the building of high-speed roads. This negates the funding for the climate and safety programs  because high-speed roads are dangerous by design and increase transportation emissions. Here’s how. 

Vehicles need a lot of space to reach high speeds. Building communities where vehicles can go fast means building destinations spread far apart from each other—the suburban sprawl that many Americans are intimately familiar with. In these sprawling built environments, using any transportation mode besides a personal car becomes incredibly inconvenient and deadly (our report Dangerous by Design found that almost 50,000 people were killed while walking and biking between 2008 and 2017, and that number is rising). Hence, high-speed roads are both dangerous for pedestrians and encourage driving and increase vehicle miles traveled—which increases greenhouse gas emissions. 

Governments at all levels use vehicle speeds as a poor proxy for measuring how connected people are to destinations, like jobs, schools, and grocery stores. But high vehicle speed doesn’t mean that people actually reached their destination in a reasonable time. Our current federal transportation program prioritizes funding a 90 mile commute at 60 mph rather than a five mile commute in stop-and-go traffic. But which commute would you rather have? 

By continuing to prioritize new high-speed roads, the ATIA doesn’t focus on the outcomes of its investments. It doesn’t prioritize connecting people to jobs and services. 

Finally, the bill perpetuates the false notion that highways are the most important transportation mode. In keeping with recent  history, Congress has advanced a major highway bill before either of the Congressional committees dealing with rail and transit have even begun to act. At $287 billion over five years, this bill assumes more than the lion’s share of available funding for highways.

Why we’re thrilled to support the Build Local, Hire Local Act

A bike commuter wearing a suit, tie, and a helmet flashes a thumbs up to the photographer while biking on a busy road in San Francisco.

Last month, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Representative Karen Bass (CA-37) introduced legislation that would create transportation accessibility performance measures and a grant program to reconnect communities divided by highways. 

A bike commuter wearing a suit, tie, and a helmet flashes a thumbs up to the photographer while biking on a busy road in San Francisco.

Last month, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative. Karen Bass (D-CA), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, introduced the Build Local, Hire Local Act (S. 2404 and H.R. 4101 ), legislation that would use federal infrastructure funding as a tool to hire people who live near new infrastructure projects for high-quality jobs. 

In the process, the bill creates a new access to jobs and services performance measure, and a technical assistance program, and a construction grant program to improve transportation connections in communities divided by highways. We’ve worked closely with the Senator and Representative in developing this legislation and are thrilled to support the Build Local, Hire Local Act.

The performance measure included in the bill requires states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to assess how well the entire transportation system—roads, public transit, bike lanes and sidewalks—connects people to opportunities, putting a particular emphasis on improving accessibility in low-income communities. States and MPOs must report these assessments to Congress, who will make the data publicly available online. Measuring accessibility would lead us to a transportation system that prioritizes efficient travel and a more equitable transportation system. 

These tools allow states and MPOs to better understand where people are traveling and to design transportation networks to maximize the ability of people to travel. It also allows states and MPOs to optimize their transportation networks to utilize all modes of transportation and even to understand how their investments interact with land use policies.

This connectivity and accessibility performance measure is similar to the COMMUTE Act, a bill that would create a pilot program for states and MPOs to use travel data collected by the U.S. Department of Transportation to measure and improve access to jobs and services by all modes. We’ve been advocating for this legislation for awhile, and a version of the COMMUTE Act is included in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s recently passed long-term transportation policy bill. 

The Build Local, Hire Local Act’s technical assistance program and grant program take this performance measure a step further. To improve access to jobs and services by all modes, the bill will help communities—especially those bi-furcated by highways—find and build innovative projects that connect divided neighborhoods. 

This is an important step in the right direction. Too often, highway infrastructure tears apart communities, particularly disadvantaged communities, separating people from jobs, services, and connections to other neighborhoods. This not only exacerbates existing inequalities, it worsens air pollution and public health outcomes, turning neighborhoods from places where people want to be into places people want to get away from—via the highway. This bill seeks to fix that.  

“The goal of our transportation system should be to safely and efficiently connect people to jobs and services,” said our director Beth Osborne. “For too long, we have treated vehicle speed as a sufficient measure for this goal. Yet it fails to capture walking, cycling, and transit trips, and inaccurately measures vehicle trips.

“Transportation for America commends Senator Gillibrand and Representative Bass for this innovative legislation to measure and judge performance by what really matters in transportation: access by all modes of travel.”

In the Wall Street Journal: Our chairman advocates for long-distance rail

T4America’s chairman, John Robert Smith, starred in a mini-documentary from the Wall Street Journal about Amtrak’s proposal to cut long-distance routes. Smith made the case for saving these routes.

T4 America chair John Robert Smith spent 12 hours with a Wall Street Journal reporter on an overnight ride on the Crescent route from Washington, DC to New Orleans. The trip was part joy ride, part campaign to save Amtrak’s long-distance routes. Amtrak has proposed cutting long-distance routes into shorter, more frequent trains connecting regional cities. At T4America, we’ve been working for years to help preserve and even expand passenger rail throughout America, recognizing that the service is a valuable transportation option—and is often the only way to travel in some smaller, rural communities.  

Smith, the former mayor of Meridian, Miss., believes that cutting the long routes or breaking them up is a mistake. “I’m afraid we’re positioning rural America to fail,” he said. 

Smith continued, arguing: 

“You’re seeing a microcosm of the type of people that depend on long-distance trains. Their quality of life would diminish without this option. You see that lady who’s 100 years old, do you think she’d be making that trip by car or flying?

“The question isn’t whether the Crescent or any other train is profitable; the question is does it bring value to the cities that it serves along that line, and is that value significantly more than the very modest amount that it takes to operate that train?”

Share on Twitter

 

Watch the seven-minute video here. 

House committee grills USDOT on transit funding delays

Bird's eye view of construction on a wide road in Los Angeles.

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 projects in a timely fashion through the transit Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program.

Bird's eye view of construction on a wide road in Los Angeles.

Construction on the Crenshaw/LAX line in Los Angeles. Photo by LA Metro.

While the hearing’s second panel was far less informative or helpful (more on that later), the first panel consisted solely of Acting FTA Administrator K. Jane Williams answering questions from a number of committee members about the impacts of USDOT’s and FTA’s efforts to slow down grants from the lone federal program dedicated to building new and expanded public transit. 

Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) opened strong, reporting committee staff’s analysis of FTA’s data on its administering of the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. (You can read the full findings here.) Staff found that delays in obligating CIG funds have doubled since the Obama administration, despite Trump administration claims that “environmental reviews” were what slowed down delivery, according to DeFazio. 

Committee staff also found that the CIG cost share of transit projects has decreased, falling from an Obama administration height of CIG funds composing 50 percent of a project’s funding to now, where CIG funds constitute no more than 36.6 percent. According to DeFazio, this is because the FTA has made it known to transit agencies that projects asking for “over 40 percent won’t be funded or will receive a low rating.” 

The FTA’s spreadsheet sleight-of-hand 

Back in April, the FTA released a statement announcing $1.36 billion in federal funding “allocations” to 16 projects. As we’ve noted already, allocations are simply a spreadsheet exercise. While normally an important step in the typical process for grants, no agreement is signed, no money changes hands and local communities are not able to proceed with construction.

In her testimony, Acting FTA administrator K. Jane Williams referenced allocating $825 million worth of CIG projects this year, saying that, “in our administration, when we make an allocation, it is our signal that we will sign a grant agreement.” 

That was certainly the case during previous administrations, and the Acting Administrator’s comment is welcome. However, the Acting Administrator did not state how long communities should expect to wait between an allocation and a grant agreement. Indeed, FTA’s actions over the last two-and-a-half years tell a different story. Under this administration, projects have languished for months after receiving an allocation. Many that received allocations last year are still waiting for their signed grant agreement that actually give them the funding to proceed.

Because Trump’s USDOT requested zero dollars for new transit projects for two years , FTA also halted the standard practice of publishing clear reports along with the annual budget request that specifically described which projects would receive funding that fiscal year. Without these reports (and even less information publicly available online) it is difficult for Congress and the public to hold the FTA accountable. Allocating funds without these reports, and without a clear commitment to advancing projects through the pipeline, is confusing and misleading to the public.

There are certainly delays coming from somewhere

Acting Administrator Williams was asked very directly about delays for these projects, and she gave a direct but very carefully worded answer: “There is not an FFGA, SSGA or Letter of No Prejudice on my desk, my leadership’s desk, or OMB’s desk. So there are no delays happening.” When asked a follow-up question about her answer, she affirmed that “there is not one single project waiting for my action as I sit here today.”

But that’s exactly the problem: nobody—transit agencies, local governments, or us at T4America—know precisely what is causing delays. This is made worse by the FTA no longer publishing the reports that enable Congress and the public to hold them accountable. 

The Acting Administrator blamed delays on local communities. However, we know that it has been nearly 500 days since FY2018 appropriations were signed, and FTA still has not identified the specific CIG projects for all of the available 2018 funding. We also know that local communities and project sponsors report poor communication with FTA, a lack of transparency, and numerous bureaucratic hurdles to advancing projects. 

If FTA will not help local communities then the projects will never advance to the Acting Administrator (or anyone else’s) desk—it’s a catch-22. 

Committee members from both parties understand how important transit is

Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN) doesn’t have any CIG projects in his district. But he knows that investing in transit is good for his state not just by improving people’s transportation options, but by supporting manufacturing jobs up the supply chain. Trains and buses and rails all need to be built; investing in transit directly supports these industries. Indiana is home to 193 of these manufacturers. 

Across the aisle, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) grilled the FTA Acting Administrator on whether the FTA records and calculates the cost to communities of transit funding delays. The (roundabout) answer: if the FTA does collect that information, it won’t be sharing it. 

Testimony about transit focused on roads

After two hours of testimony and questions spotlighting the FTA, a second panel focused on transit capital grants with testimony from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the Kansas City Streetcar Authority. Although the House T&I committee is charged with writing policy and has no jurisdiction over money, these testimonies, particularly ARTBA’s, went straight to talking about the Highway Trust Fund. 

There was also a lot of discussion about the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization, an issue that House T&I has jurisdiction over but was not the focus of the hearing. 

There was one cool and unexpected comment, though: APTA’s president, Paul Skoutelas, proudly told the committee that he doesn’t own a car, saying “I take the bus.” We love that! 

Some transit agencies are unwilling to speak up

We’ve heard that local governments and transit agencies are hesitant to be publicly critical of the FTA—especially when they have projects in the pipeline or in development. The only witness before the House T&I Committee that actually applied for CIG funding was the Kansas City Streetcar Authority. The agency is waiting for $330 million to extend its popular line. We were thrilled to hear that they have had a positive experience. However, plenty of other agencies have seen their costs rise because of delays, a few of which we chronicled before the hearing, and which were well documented in the Committee staff report. 

By the time this second panel started with ARTBA, the T&I Committee room had mostly emptied out, signaling that perhaps the members of the committee were as skeptical about the utility of this second panel as we were before the hearing.

On what does the House T&I Committee have jurisdiction?

Members and witnesses alike both regularly strayed into off-topic remarks that were beyond both the topic of the hearing (transit grants) and the jurisdiction of the committee. Raising the gas tax received a lot of air time, as well as electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, and of course the obligatory mention of Hyperloop.

Yet the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has limited or no jurisdiction over these things. Especially the question of raising the gas tax—that’s a matter for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. 

What this committee does have jurisdiction over is how the FTA administers transit grant programs. The first half of the hearing was a good start, but the small amount of progress the FTA has made in the last year has been the direct result of pressure from the public and Congress, and the committee will need to keep up the urgency on advancing these projects in a timely fashion.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is holding an oversight hearing on USDOT’s failure to release transit grants

Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee speaking at a hearing.

Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee speaking at a hearing.House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) speaking at a hearing.

Transportation for America urges the House of Representatives to turn up the heat on USDOT for failing to release funding for transit grants during an oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 16.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is holding a long-awaited oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 16 at 10:00 AM to hold the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) accountable for failing to spend transit funds that Congress already appropriated for deserving transit projects. 

“The Trump administration is undermining Americans’ access to jobs and improved quality of life by failing to release approved funding for transit projects,” Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America, said. “USDOT has slowed down the pipeline of projects dramatically and made the process so confusing and unclear that local communities could be discouraged from even applying with their new projects, even though Congress has repeatedly provided funds for this program. Communities and leaders on both sides of the aisle choose to invest in public transit because it makes sense. The federal government needs to do its job—release the funds in a transparent and timely manner.” 

Since the Trump administration took office more than two years ago, Congress has appropriated  approximately $3.8 billion to the popular transit Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, the main source of federal funding for building and expanding transit systems in cities of all sizes all over the country. 

Congress has continued to hold up their part of the bargain, but USDOT has failed to do its job, awarding just one-third of that $3.8 billion to new transit projects, slowing the pipeline of transit projects down to a snail’s pace.  By the middle of 2019—two and a half years into the Trump’s first term—the USDOT had approved and signed just five grant agreements for new, large, multi-year transit projects. 

USDOT is still sitting on ~$2.4 billion that is to be obligated to transit projects. Communities are waiting;  jobs and critical projects are on the line. Local communities are counting on the federal government to be a reliable partner and provide the funds they have been counting on. The funding for new or improved transit service has already been appropriated by Congress—USDOT just needs to do its job.

Transportation for America applauds Representative Peter DeFazio, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for bringing this important issue to light. We hope that Committee members will join him in asking difficult questions during the hearing, such as: 

  •  Why does FTA seem to be unwilling to sign grant agreements for eligible transit projects?
  •  Why isn’t FTA being more transparent and forthcoming about the status of projects publicly and with project sponsors. FTA no longer publishes the same summaries on their website.
  • Why does FTA seem to be aiming to confuse the public with the announcements of “funding allocations” which are not binding and don’t result in any actual money going to local agencies?