Skip to main content

Author Archives: Mollie Dalbey

Transit fiscal cliff or transit fiscal doom?

When ridership plummeted at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, transit agencies across the country experienced substantial operating budget deficits. The federal government responded by rolling out multiple relief packages to help agencies make it through the worst of the pandemic. Now, in early 2023, funds are running out. We surveyed transit agencies nationwide to see where they stand as federal support dwindles.

Baltimore Charm City Circulator. Photo via Flickr/Elvert Barnes Photography

What is the transit fiscal cliff?

According to the American Public Transportation Association, in the five years leading up to the pandemic, ridership was slowly declining across a range of transit agencies. Even with relatively stable ridership, transit agencies were already struggling to make ends meet. 

When the Covid-19 pandemic caused national lockdowns, ridership plummeted, causing revenues from fare collection to drop to almost zero. Without fare revenues, transit agencies no longer had the funding to cover their operating costs. And the federal government stepped in, rolling out three separate emergency relief packages, and incorporating increased support for transit agencies in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). (Learn more about what the IIJA could accomplish for transit here.)

However, this funding alone was not enough. Ridership still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels, and workforce shortages have only applied additional stress. Some local and state leaders also misinterpreted the new influx of federal cash as an opportunity to cut back on their own spending on transit, further delaying the recovery.

These combined stressors have created the transit fiscal cliff: the operating budget deficit expected at transit agencies across the country once their federal relief runs out. And for many transit agencies, the cliff is coming very soon—in some cases, as early as next year.

Above is a depiction of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) operating budget outlook for Fiscal Year 2024. The area outlined in the red dashed line represents the budget deficit. This graph is just one example of the drop-off, or fiscal cliff, many transit agencies expect to experience when federal funds run out.

How bad is it?

The National Campaign for Transit Justice (NCTJ) and T4America conducted a sample survey to paint a picture of the fiscal health of transit agencies around the United States as they approach the two-year anniversary of the last emergency relief package. In an effort to hear from a representative sample, we contacted about 40 transit agencies across the country, operationally diverse in size,  around the country. 

Out of the agencies we contacted, we received 27 responses. Here’s what we found:

1. Urban ridership recovery lags behind rural ridership.

We started our analysis by separating agencies into groups based on geographic area. 5 survey participants serve rural populations, 19 participants serve urban populations, and 4 participants serve both rural and urban populations. 

While there is a broad range, the majority of urban transit agencies report recovery levels lower than 75 percent of pre-pandemic levels. Rural agencies  reported a range of ridership recovery as low as 60 percent and as high as 90 percent. Meanwhile, jurisdictions that serve both rural and urban populations hovered near the top, reporting ridership around 80 percent of pre-pandemic levels. 

Increased workplace choice might explain the slow ridership recovery in urban areas. Workers who have greater workplace choice could have the option to work remotely and no longer rely on public transit to commute. We also found that urban riders are experiencing less reliable service due to workforce shortages. Service reliability is imperative to workers dependent on public transportation, and a lack of reliability could push riders to other travel options.

2. Most agencies are experiencing workforce shortages.

Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, workforce shortages have been a major issue across sectors, including public transportation. We knew that the agencies participating in our study might be experiencing shortages, but we were unprepared for the prevalence of workforce issues.

Of our 27 participants, 24 continue to experience workforce shortages, starting when the pandemic began. Some agencies are short over 800 operators and maintenance workers who are vital for the day-to-day operation of transit agencies. As a result of the limited personnel, some agencies have had no choice but to cut service. 

To address these shortages, agencies are working to incentivize workers to join their team. See this blog post for more information on their efforts.

3. Two-thirds of transit agencies predict budget deficits by 2025.

We separated participants into three groups based on their timelines for expected operating budgets. An overwhelming majority of transit agencies expect budget deficits with start dates rapidly approaching. Transit agencies began running out of funds as early as Fiscal Year 2022, and only 5 of our 27 participants didn’t project an operating budget deficit.

10 out of 27 projected deficits starting in Fiscal Year 2024, and an additional 10 projected deficits starting in Fiscal Year 2025. Only 3 transit agencies projected operating budget deficits starting in the Fiscal Year 2026 or later and expected funds to last long term without intervention.

4. Transit agencies are implementing unique tactics to address budget shortfalls.

Participants varied in how they plan to address their deficits. Seven participants plan to increase fare prices, five plan to cut services, three are discussing ballot measures to increase funding, and the remaining are looking at solutions unique to their situations. One agency is looking to change service hours to reflect new traffic patterns. Another is looking to create a coalition of local businesses and institutions to philanthropically support the transit system, which would help replace missing fares.

It’s clear that transit agencies know the fiscal cliff is coming, and they’re not turning a blind eye. To continue delivering the service communities need, these agencies are offering creative solutions, showing a steadfast commitment to the operation of public transportation.

Help transit succeed

The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act (H.R. 3744), sponsored by Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia, would allocate $20 billion annually to transit agencies’ operating budgets for four years, starting in FY23. The additional federal funding would empower agencies to make significant improvements to transit service. This could mean providing additional service or developing services for underserved communities. You can show your support for this legislation by calling your congressional representatives.

In addition to calling for federal funding, you can contact your state legislators and tell them to support similar legislation at the state level. In some states, that may mean advocating for constitutional and statutory changes that would allow the state to provide funding support for transit and alternative modes of transportation.

Another way to advocate for transit is by getting involved with your local government meetings. Providing feedback for members of local government is an integral step in improving transit service.

For too long, transit agencies have struggled to provide necessary service to our communities. So that all Americans are able to take advantage of this valuable resource, transit agencies must be given the support they need to deliver quality, reliable service.

Five things to know about TransportationCamp DC

Calvin Gladney faces a crowd of seated attendees

TransportationCamp DC is an annual opportunity to connect with experts, practitioners, and students all at once. It’s coming back on Saturday, January 7, 2023 at George Mason University’s Arlington campus. Here are the top five things you need to know about the popular “unconference.”

Calvin Gladney faces a crowd of seated attendees

1. We’re hybrid this year

We want to reach as many people as possible, so in addition to the in-person event at Van Metre Hall, we’ll also have a virtual option over Zoom.

2. Attendees choose the topics—and lead the conversation

TransportationCamp is a place for all “transportation nerds” to set the agenda and lead the conversation. After the keynote, the full-day event is broken up into hour-long breakout sessions. In-person Campers propose discussion topics on the morning of the event, and if their topic gets picked, they get to lead a one-hour discussion.

3. Virtual attendees propose virtual-only session topics in advance

Virtual attendees gain access to the welcome, keynote address, hybrid sessions, and virtual-only sessions that they lead themselves. Unlike in-person attendees, virtual Campers will propose their session topics in December. Register by December 1 to make sure you don’t miss your chance to submit!

Map

4. You can get to TransportationCamp by bus, car, metro, or bike

Van Metre Hall on George Mason University’s Arlington campus is located on the orange and silver metro lines, right between the Virginia Square—GMU and Clarendon stops. A Capital Bikeshare docking station is located near the entrance on Fairfax Drive. If you’re driving, you can find parking in the garage under Van Metre Hall. Easily route to the entrance of the garage by plugging “Founders Way North, Arlington, VA” into your GPS.

5. Registration is open now, and spots are limited

This unconference is always full of new things to learn —and tons of fun. Register today to secure your seat at TransportationCamp DC, and let others know you’ll be there! Tweet with our hashtag and join our LinkedIn event.

Here’s a quick look at what folks had to say about last year’s event:

Your questions about the Reconnecting Communities Program, answered

The Reconnecting Communities Program is a new funding opportunity passed under the 2021 infrastructure law, and there’s a lot to learn about what it can accomplish. That’s why we hosted a webinar on the Reconnecting Communities Program last month. Here’s what you asked, and here are our answers.

Need more background before you dive in? Check out our previous post on this new program.

The pedestrian bridge in Greenville’s Falls Park on the Reedy that replaced a highway, spurring over $100 million in private investment in its first two years. Photo by James Willamor on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

How do I get a Reconnecting Communities Program (RCP) project started? Do I have to convince my state DOT to support the project?

Cities willing to sponsor projects to remove, retrofit, mitigate, or replace an existing locally owned road can do so without state DOT support. While helpful, state cooperation is not needed to get an RCP project off the ground.

Is there a maximum grant size?

For Planning Grants, the maximum grant award is $2 million. For Capital Projects, the minimum grant award is $5 million but can be as large at $100 million. Funding may not be enough to complete larger projects so applicants who demonstrate funding capabilities outside of the RCP will receive priority funding.

Is there an opportunity for private capital investments to contribute to local matches?

RCP is a great opportunity to engage local business groups and nonprofits to contribute to local project costs and non-federal matches. Local businesses have a vested interest in reconnecting communities to shops, restaurants, and other goods and services. It is important to engage all funders, including USDOT, through the entire lifecycle of RCP projects.

Does an RCP project require an environmental impact study?

For most projects, a general environmental impact statement (EIS) is sufficient. The Notice of Funding Opportunity also suggests completing an EPA Environmental Justice Screen or similar reports to ensure equity and environmental justice concerns are given proper consideration and can be addressed.

Is the RCP the same as the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program (NAEP)?

The RCP and the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program (NAEP) are two different but complementary programs. RCP is a pilot program within the infrastructure law while the NAEP is a separate program within the Inflation Reduction Act that is permanently enshrined in US law (23 USC 177). These programs may be used to bolster one another as the NAEP can be used for a wider range of projects aimed at connected, thriving communities than the RCP. You can read more about the NAEP in our blog about the Inflation Reduction Act.

How can RCP projects address racial equity in order to avoid past mistakes?

Projects should partake in a context-sensitive approach that acknowledges past racial inequities resulting from road projects that divided and bulldozed communities of color. Local leaders can do this by following the lead of community advocates that have been pushing for better connections for decades. RCP projects should engage community stakeholders early and often throughout the process.

Have more questions?

Let us know! Reach out to benito.perez@t4america.org for more information about the Reconnecting Communities Program. Remember, the deadline to apply for the first round of funding is October 13th, 2022!

Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.

Following through on the ADA: The All Stations Accessibility Program

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released a notice of funding opportunity for the All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP) that allocates $343 million in fiscal year 2022 (FY22). This program offers competitive grants to localities for the upgrading of legacy stations so they meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

Flickr photo by MTA

Why do we need the All Stations Accessibility Program?

The transportation sector is a leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions nationwide, and the majority of its contributions comes from driving in private vehicles. As we wrote in our report Driving Down Emissions, in order to reduce transportation emissions, we need to give people the option to travel outside of a car.

One such option is transit—like buses, subways, and commuter rail—but many barriers prevent people from replacing their daily car trips with transit trips. (Read our blog series for more information on the impact increased transit access and funding can have on car trips.) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 required transit stations to address one of these barriers: equitable access for people with disabilities.

Equitable access is pivotal for allowing people with disabilities to utilize other forms of travel outside of car travel. Walking and rolling to destinations presents its own challenges, because the majority of U.S. cities aren’t designed for walking and rolling. Destinations are spread out, and even nearby destinations might be on the other side of a wide, dangerous arterial road. In addition, many sidewalks aren’t accessible for people who use mobility aids, either due to obstructions like snow (and even EV-charging extension cords), poor maintenance, or inaccessible entrances and exits at intersections. For the 40 percent of people with disabilities who cannot drive, transit access can be an essential resource for daily trips.

However, even in cities with readily available transit networks, like New York City, people with disabilities do not have the access they need. That’s because, more than 30 years after the ADA was enacted, many legacy stations (public transit stations built before 1992 or commuter rail stations built before 1991) haven’t been updated to meet equitable accessibility standards. 

Many legacy stations were built without consideration or guidance on designs that adequately served riders with disabilities. Once the ADA was passed, the law required that any capital improvements made to public transportation or commuter rail stations must satisfy requirements of the ADA. However, ADA compliance presented an additional cost to transit agencies, so rather than install the capital improvements their riders needed, they avoided making these necessary changes to their stations. As a result, many legacy stations not only remain inaccessible—they’ve entered a state of disrepair.

The lack of available options can pose major issues in the lives of people with disabilities. Limited transit access can mean that one small change—like the only elevator at the nearest accessible transit station being out of service—can create hours of delays as a wheelchair-bound rider waits for paratransit, attempts to hail an accessible cab, or chooses a less direct transit route that requires multiple connections. Such delays can make all the difference in whether riders reach essential services, like healthcare appointments or job interviews, or miss their window. And in the case of natural disasters like hurricanes and floods, these delays can make it impossible for people with disabilities to safely evacuate using transit. As Jean Ryan of Disabled in Action put it, “access delayed is access denied.”

Reliable, accessible transit is an important resource for people with disabilities to reach their daily needs. Considering that a quarter of the American population is disabled, improved access for all travelers is also central to getting more people on the bus, subway, and train—boosting transit revenues and lowering transportation emissions. ASAP gives localities the funding they need to upgrade legacy stations so that transit stations can make good on the long overdue promise of the ADA and better serve all riders.

Has your transit agency applied for an ASAP grant?

The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for the All Stations Accessibility Program was released on July 26, 2022. Applications for ASAP grants must be submitted for review no later than September 30th, 2022 at 11:59 p.m. States, local authorities (including MPOs), and other entities (like transit agencies) that operate or support legacy stations can apply for this grant. (Note: Even if local authorities miss their window for ASAP grants, they can seek federal funding for capital improvements to address accessibility. Learn more about transit funds made available by the new infrastructure law and check out our funding memo for more details.)

ASAP grants can cover up to 80 percent of the total cost of the proposed project. Localities must fund the remaining 20 percent of the total cost but localities can derive this funding from a variety of sources. The FTA has not released a maximum funding cap, but maintains the authority to cap funding during the selection process.

Localities can apply for two funding options: capital projects or planning projects. Capital projects include repairing, improving, modifying or retrofitting legacy stations while planning projects include developing or modifying ongoing projects to comply with ADA standards. If localities want to apply for both capital project funding and planning project funding they should submit separate applications for each project.

After the application process, FTA will assess applications based on criteria that consider the need for improvement, the benefits from the proposed project, coordination with stakeholders, local financial commitment, implementation strategy, and applicant capacity. The FTA will review this criteria as well as prioritize projects that address racial equity and barriers to opportunity. 

Operators of legacy stations have the responsibility to create an equitable riding experience, and now the ASAP can empower these entities to meet their ADA obligations and adequately serve all riders. To encourage transit ridership, agencies need to provide riders with reliable, accessible service—applying for ASAP grants will help them do just that.

Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.

Congressional appropriations proposals miss the mark

The appropriations process for 2023 determines funding levels for key infrastructure projects set up under the new infrastructure law. Congress’s proposals and the president’s budget aren’t lining up with the administration’s stated goals to improve safety, reduce emissions, and expand the national rail network.

Wikimedia photo by Jorge Gallo

The appropriations process

In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or “infrastructure law”) reauthorized the federal transportation program, creating several new programs and increasing funding for many others. The IIJA guaranteed the funding of certain programs for five years through advanced appropriations, but the rest are subject to the annual appropriations process. On March 28, 2022 the Biden administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2023 (FY23) to Congress. On June 22, 2022, the House Appropriations Committee released its FY23 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations funding bill, followed by the Senate version on July 28.

T4A has been following the rollout of the IIJA, but much of our analysis depends on whether Congress chooses to fully fund it. Since 2023 will be the first full fiscal year since the IIJA was passed, this spending bill is the federal government’s first opportunity to set new funding levels since the law was passed. However, the current proposals spell trouble for the administration’s priorities.

Forgetting the promise of the IIJA

In many cases, both the House and Senate failed to fund programs at their IIJA-authorized levels. For example, the IIJA authorizes funding for key safety programs like the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program (SS4A) and Healthy Streets Program at much higher levels than what’s outlined in these proposals. The president’s budget provided $200 million for the SS4A, which can fund needed safety plans and projects, but nothing for Healthy Streets or the Active Transportation Investment Program (ATIIP), which could aid in the creation of active transportation networks. 

The Senate zeroed out SS4A and Healthy Streets, while providing only $25 million to ATIIP.​​ (The Senate bill instead prioritized the more flexible RAISE and PROTECT programs, both of which can be used to construct dangerous roads.) The House bill delivers slightly better on safety and active transportation by allocating $100 million to ATIIP, $250 million to SS4A, and $55 million to the Healthy Streets Program, but even their plan funds SS4A at only 8 percent of the level authorized by the IIJA.

Additionally, the Senate allocated $2.5 billion for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, the main competitive grant program available for transit capital projects. This number is about $250 million less than the administration requested and about $500 million less than the House version (granted the House version exceeded the authorized level in the IIJA). CIG is the main competitive grant program available for transit capital projects. 

Both proposed bills increase funding levels for Amtrak over FY22 levels, but not in a regionally equitable manner. In particular, the Senate bill allocates almost 40 percent of Amtrak’s funding to the Northeast Corridor, a small portion of Amtrak’s domain, while underfunding Amtrak’s National Network by about 35 percent, denying most of the nation’s rail service over $700 million in needed funding. These uneven investments will further exacerbate the already widespread belief that the Northeast Corridor is economically competitive with the transportation market, when in reality, the Northeast Corridor relies on federal funding just as much as other rail corridors—it simply has historically benefited from more federal funds. 

Both bills also stripped the crucial Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rails, a key source of funds for expanding passenger rail service across the country and establishing a national network, of over $1 billion in IIJA-authorized funding. This is all despite a stated commitment in the proposed Senate bill to sustain long-distance passenger rail services and “ensure connectivity throughout the National Network.”

Notably, the House and Senate were able to come to a consensus on one thing: fully funding the Highway Formula Program (Highway Trust Fund) at IIJA levels—$58.765 billion. These funds can be used for a range of projects, but more often than not, they’re used to back highway expansions or other costly infrastructure projects that undermine efforts to improve safety and advance climate goals.

The takeaway

These appropriations proposals were Congress’s first chance to fund programs since the IIJA passed. Though they couldn’t change the authorized funding levels set up in the infrastructure law, which invested a great deal of money into highways and set aside much smaller amounts for safety, transit, and rail, Congress did have the chance to ensure that even these smaller investments could receive their fair share. The decision to cut these programs will undermine the administration’s goals for the transportation system and will make it even harder for the IIJA to achieve its full potential.

The states will still be left with a tremendous amount of control over the safety of our streets and the level of our transportation emissions. The highway programs Congress chose to back are highly flexible, and states can use that flexibility to fund needed projects to boost connectivity, encourage active transportation, and create a better transportation system for all.

What’s missing in the new rule for EV chargers?

Photo from Pxfuel/Architecture and Design

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, or just the infrastructure law) created the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, a five-year formula grant program meant to establish a national network of electric vehicle charging stations. On June 9, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on how it plans to administer this program, opening the proposed rule for public comment.

What is the NEVI program?

The NEVI program was created in the infrastructure law as a way to kick-start national electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure development. While EVs can’t be the sole solution for driving down transportation emissions, they can help reduce emissions (and we can use all the help we can get). Reliable, accessible, and convenient charging infrastructure will make the EV market more attractive and accessible for consumers looking to make the switch from gas-powered vehicles. 

The infrastructure law funded the NEVI program at $5 billion to accomplish this task, starting with $615 million in fiscal year 2022. Note that, unlike other new programs like the Carbon Reduction Program, this  program is on a “trial basis,” and it’s only guaranteed for five years. That means states should take full advantage of the opportunity while they can.

Each state must submit an EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan (Plan) by August 1st to the FHWA in order to receive NEVI funds.

What are the proposed requirements for NEVI-funded EV infrastructure?

According to the FHWA’s set of proposed minimum standards and requirements, states can spend NEVI funds for three reasons:

  1. Acquisition, installation, and network connection of EV charging stations
  2. Continued operation and maintenance of EV charging stations
  3. Data collection of EV charging stations

The goal of the proposed rule is to ensure that EV charging stations work as smoothly as possible for both the operator and consumer. The FHWA will require uniformity through:

  1. A universally user-friendly experience at every charging station, including factors like the number of chargers, the type of charging ports, availability of ports, and high-quality operation and maintenance.
  2. Adequate access to charging infrastructure at every station regardless of brand of electric vehicle.
  3. Universally recognizable traffic signals and markings in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD).
  4. Data on the operation, management, and outcomes of charging stations and the workforce that supports them.
  5. Connectivity between chargers, the charging network, and the energy utilities.
  6. Mapping applications that relay information to the consumer (or computer) regarding location or station, price to charge, real-time availability, and type of charger port availability.

An opportunity and a challenge

The FHWA released these proposed standards to the public so that stakeholders could provide their feedback. This is the time to comment! Whether you represent an organization or you’re responding as an individual, submit your ideas and concerns by August 22, 2022. 

Alternative fuel corridors provide a network of EV charging stations for local and long-distance travelers, and communities should think carefully about where their charging stations are located. Co-location, equity, and maintenance should be taken into account when placing EV chargers. 

While many people can charge their EV at home overnight, longer trips that go beyond the vehicle’s maximum range can prove to be a challenge. It takes 30-60 minutes to charge an EV, even at a fast charger. Co-location, or placing chargers near retail outlets and businesses, could turn long waits into opportunities for visitors and businesses alike. For example, instead of constructing charging stations at truck stops far away from local businesses, rural communities can place stations near their main streets, allowing EV drivers to peruse local shops and restaurants while they wait for their vehicles to charge.

Like any program, NEVI will only be successful if it equitably serves all American communities. FHWA must amend the program to serve more than just those who have access to EV chargers in their single family homes. Where alternative fuel corridors go through larger urban areas, chargers should be located near local residents who lack dedicated charging at home. In the same vein as co-location, station locations should be planned in accordance with the land use needs of marginalized communities.

In addition, the proposed rule doesn’t provide much attention to maintenance and uptime. It requires that stations meet NEVI standards for five years, but the standards laid out in the program only touch on technician qualifications and minimum certifications. Like much of the federal transportation program, NEVI funds construction, but has little to no plan for maintenance. 

The transition to EVs will require a network of charging infrastructure that works for all Americans. To get the most out of taxpayer dollars, states can and should consider how charging stations can best serve all residents for years to come. However, to ensure the success of the program, the finalized federal rules should make these considerations impossible to overlook.

Vision Zero won’t happen without Safe Streets for All

Seattle Vision Zero sign: Look Out for Each Other
Seattle Vision Zero sign: Look Out for Each Other
Signs like this one, while welcome, aren’t enough to lower the ever-climbing rate of pedestrian fatalities. Fortunately, localities have other resources to make on-the-ground changes. Image from Flickr/SDOT

The infrastructure law created a new grant program to help communities tackle the increasing rate of roadway deaths. The Safe Streets and Roads for All program allows localities to take direct steps to improve safety for all roadway users, whether they’re setting up a Vision Zero plan or actually planning, designing, and constructing street safety improvements. Funding is available now.

Is there a particularly dangerous street near you? We and Smart Growth America want to see it. Share photos and videos of your streets on Twitter with #DangerousByDesign and/or tagging @SmartGrowthUSA. Learn more on Smart Growth America’s website.

In a recent House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, expert witnesses and representatives alike expressed their commitment to Vision Zero as well as their concern for underserved and marginalized communities. Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) got the discussion started, and his words are worth repeating:

Rep. Hank Johnson speaking

“While pedestrian safety impacts all Americans, the risks are not evenly distributed. According to a recent Governor’s Highway Safety Association study, Black children ages four to 15 had the highest rates of fatalities involving pedestrians as a percentage of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities.”

Up to this point, localities across the United States had to rely on their own resources or engage in long, frustrating negotiations with their state DOTs to tackle roadway safety issues with existing federal formula funds. Now, localities that want to implement Vision Zero plans have a more direct route to funding and guidance through the new Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program. Created by the infrastructure law, the SS4A program sets aside $6 billion over five years to fund studies, planning, and project construction to increase the safety of all road users and shift the paradigm in road construction to safety over speed.

The Safe Streets for All program is open for business

The USDOT has released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for local authorities, state and local governments, tribal groups, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Any of these entities can now apply alone or through a joint application with other entities (encouraged). Because of the historical complexities in applying for federal grants, the USDOT’s R.O.U.T.E.S. tools have been made available to support communities needing technical help with applying and processing grants, especially rural and underserved communities.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires a Comprehensive Action Plan (otherwise known as a Vision Zero plan) prior to funding the planning and construction of safety projects with SS4A program dollars. SS4A funding opportunities are available for applicants in varying stages of Vision Zero planning. Applicants who are starting from scratch or who require a considerable amount of work to complete an Action Plan should apply for an Action Plan Grant (or a Supplementary Action Plan Grant for plan update work). An Action Plan Grant consists of a safety analysis, equity considerations, planning structure, and other aspects that culminate in a plan to achieve the goal of Vision Zero. Likewise, applicants who are ready to build projects in their Vision Zero plan should apply for an Implementation Grant.

Type of grantMax funding
Implementation Grant$30 million
Action Plan Grant (localities or tribal governments)$1 million
Action Plan Grant (MPOs)$5 million

Drawing from the program’s $6 billion, the FHWA expects to fund hundreds of Action Plan Grants and about 100 Implementation Grants. As shown in the table above, different allotments of funding are provided for different stages of implementation (with the maximum amount of $30 million provided for Implementation Grants). If an applicant is selected for a grant through SS4A, the entity must commit to Justice40 goals including the allocation of 40 percent of funding to low-income or underserved communities.

After the application process, the FHWA will assess applications using criteria considering safety, equity, effective practices and strategies, project readiness and more.

Maximizing the potential of programs like SS4A is essential

An excavator digs a massive hole titled "Dangerous Roads $$$". On the other side of the hole, a man tries to fill the hole with a small pile of dirt (labeled "Safety Improvements $." The comic is labeled "U.S. Approach to Road Safety."
Produced for T4America by visual artist Jean Wei. IG/@weisanboo

While disappointing but not surprising, the majority of funding from the infrastructure law sticks to the status quo of giving states wide flexibility with their federal dollars, which many states use to widen roads, build new ones, and/or prioritize speed above safety, often perpetuating the same problems that programs like SS4A are created to solve. (Dangerous By Design 2022, an upcoming report created by the National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America, will get into some of these concerns.) For this reason, it’s vital that every dollar of the new SS4A program is maximized, helping as many communities as possible capitalize on this opportunity to create safer, more equitable roads that serve vulnerable road users. USDOT should act upon their commitment to equity within this program and prioritize projects that mitigate danger in marginalized communities, where the most vulnerable road users live and travel.

SS4A applications are due on September 15th. Transportation for America members get hands-on assistance in application to competitive grants such as the SS4A. Those interested in becoming members can inquire on our site.

Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.

Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.