Skip to main content

Author Archives: Steve Davis

 About Steve Davis

Stephen Lee Davis is the AVP for Transportation Strategy at Smart Growth America.
Website

States clamor for high-speed rail stimulus funds as applications pour into DC

Amtrak Acela 654 Northbound Originally uploaded by Jim Frazier

When the stimulus passed in February, $8 billion for high-speed rail was added at the 25th hour, at the behest of the Obama administration. In the days since, states have scrambled to prepare their proposals to receive a share of the money, which will be distributed via a process of competitive grants.

When the administration’s blueprint was released in April, President Obama said “high-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

With states competing for their share of the $8 billion to start developing and building high-speed corridors, competition was sure to be tough. As recently as yesterday, we had heard that $93 billion in grant applications were submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Just today, we saw this statement from DOT Secretary LaHood’s office detailing an even higher number: 278 pre-applications for grant funding totaling $102 billion. 40 states and the District of Columbia submitted proposals to get a share of the $8 billion available in the stimulus.

“The response has been tremendous and shows that the country is ready for high-speed rail,” Secretary LaHood said.  “It’s time to look beyond our highways and invest in public transportation services like rail, which will enhance regional mobility and reduce our carbon footprint.”

Next up for the DOT and the Federal Railroad Administration is figuring out which of these 278 applications to move forward in the process. The first step will likely be figuring out which proposals best line up with the administration’s already-released blueprint for the 10 national high-speed rail corridors. The first grantees will be announced in the fall, according to the DOT release.

Does transportation have an impact on growing health care costs?

Albuquerque8 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America
Streets safe for walking and biking — especially streets that encourage incidental exercise by encouraging walking or biking — can help residents be more healthy, lowering the health care costs associated with obesity and inactivity.

With Congress directing their attention to the contentious debate over health care reform and how to pay for it, it seems that transportation has been relegated to the back burner. In the meantime, evidence is continuing to mount that transportation investments — what we build and where — have an enormous impact on our health and the financial bottom line of providing health care.

Last week the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA) released The Economic Costs of Overweight, Obesity and Physical Inactivity Among California Adults. In a state making national headlines for its current budget crisis, the study found that (in 2006) “overweight, obesity and physical inactivity cost the state $41.2 billion – $21.0 billion for overweight and obesity, and $20.2 billion for physical inactivity.”

An even more shocking recent study found that the already-dangerous effects of air pollution are magnified for pregnant women living near busy roads.

According to this study from a team of researchers from the University of California, Irvine, exposure to traffic-generated air pollution during pregnancy increases the risk of preeclampsia and premature birth. The study examined over 80,000 birth records and found that the risk of the life-threatening condition preeclampsia increased 33% and the risk of premature birth rose 128% in women living closest to congested corridors.

Many other negative health effects from vehicle emissions, congestion and air pollution have already been documented — with low-income and minority populations typically experiencing the most harmful side effects due to where interstates and highways get built.

The CCPHA report on obesity included some concrete policy recommendations for improving public health, a few of which are connected to our transportation spending decisions.

  • Locate residential, commercial and office buildings close together so more residents can walk and bike to meet their daily needs
  • Build neighborhoods with safe and attractive parks and other places for recreational exercise
  • Create transportation corridors that support pedestrians and bicyclists

Including some realistic goals for improving public health in the transportation bill — one of T4 America’s six national transportation objectives for the bill — would be a great place to start. If we’re ever going to truly move away from a prescriptive health care model to a preventative model — saving us billions in health care costs — we’re going to have to address more than just the skyrocketing costs of treating illnesses and diseases — we’re going to have to look upstream and address some of the contributing factors.

Doing so could keep us healthier and save us billions.

With research from Becca Homa

Videos from last week’s Portland Streetcar unveiling

Youtube user bobrpdx has some great videos of last week’s unveiling of the made in the USA streetcar in Portland, including interviews with Rep. Pete DeFazio and Rep. Earl Blumenauer. Check out the rest of his videos for more Portland transit goodness.

In this particular video, Rep. DeFazio talks about the streetcar made locally by Oregon Iron Works with great admiration and pride: “Here’s the product. It’s an improvement on the European design, something I believe that in a very short period of time we’ll be exporting back to Europe,” he said.

Driving down in 2008, congestion down much more

Interstate 24 Traffic Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Due to the impact of high gas prices, the economic slowdown, and a growing preference for public transportation and other options for getting around, congestion was down in 2008 over 2007, marking the first two-year decrease in congestion since the Texas Transportation Institute began keeping track in 1982. Today, TTI released their bi-annual Urban Mobility Report today on the state of congestion and traffic in the U.S.

Some key findings:

Travelers spent one hour less stuck in traffic in 2007 than they did the year before and wasted one gallon less gasoline than the year before. The differences are small, but they represent a rare break in near-constant growth in traffic over 25 years.

  • The overall cost (based on wasted fuel and lost productivity) reached $87.2 billion in 2007 — more than $750 for every U.S. traveler.
  • The total amount of wasted fuel topped 2.8 billion gallons — three weeks’ worth of gas for every traveler.
  • The amount of wasted time totaled 4.2 billion hours — nearly one full work week (or vacation week) for every traveler.

One cause of the decrease in congestion is the same cause responsible for the lower numbers of highway fatalities — Americans have been driving less and less. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth rates have been in decline since 2005 and in 2007, total VMT and per capita VMT actually decreased for the first time since World War II. High gas prices and the recent economic downturn have contributed to these declines, but VMT was actually in decline well before the shock of increased gas prices and the recession, and has continued to fall even as gas prices plummeted over the last year.

And while total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) went down just slightly, congestion is down much more significantly.

According to Feburary numbers from INRIX, a reputable traffic statistics service, just a 3.7% drop in vehicle miles traveled in 2008 resulted in a 30% drop in congestion in our 100 most congested metro areas. That means each commuter spent 13 less hours stuck in traffic in 2008 over the previous year. And in slight contrast to the TTI report, the report found that overall, “99 of the top 100 most populated cities in the U.S. experienced decreases in traffic congestion levels in 2008 as compared to the prior year.” Small reductions in how much we drive each year have a much larger impact on congestion.

The best way to reduce congestion and help Americans save money, time and fuel is to get smarter about managing traffic and offer increased options such as public transportation, telecommuting and incentives for carpooling, bicycling and walking. There is ample evidence that shows that reducing peak hour traffic by just a small percentage will dramatically reduce congestion and all of the costs associated with traffic.”
— James Corless, T4 America

There’s no doubt that the sagging economy had a hand in reducing how much we drive. But regardless of the current economy, most Americans seem to be looking for ways to drive less — not more. So what if we invested more in the positive ways to reduce the amount we have to drive by making other options for getting around accessible, convenient, and available to more people?

With public transportation ridership still going up — even as driving is going down — it’s clear that people who have choices for getting around use them. People are looking for other convenient ways to travel that can get them out of traffic and save them time and money.

And as the INRIX numbers show, if we can make it easier to get around and increase the options for doing so, everyone behind the wheel benefits as congestion decreases. (And despite the decrease overall, the current $87 billion in congestion costs isn’t good news, by any stretch of the imagination.)

It’s unquestionable that the recession has had an impact, giving us some momentary slack in congestion. But what will we do with the breather? When the economy begins to pick back up again and people start driving more, will we head straight back into gridlock? With driving down and public transportation up, will we make more investments in the kinds of transportation options people are clamoring for, the kinds of options that can reduce congestion and make travel more painless for everyone?

Or will congestion simply mount as the economy rebounds?

Administration releases their principles for an 18-month transportation bill

When DOT Secretary LaHood was on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago discussing the Obama Administration’s plan for a transitional transportation bill, he mentioned that their plan for an 18-month extension would “enact critical reforms” while stopping short of a fundamental overhaul of the program — leaving that for the full six-year bill.

A lot of transportation advocates were left wondering what sort of reforms the administration would propose. Today we got a first look at their general proposal (via Transportation Weekly.)  Update: Elana Schor @ Streetsblog has the details on the National Infrastructure Bank.

As you may remember, Chairman James Oberstar and his House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are at odds over the timing of the authorization bill. Oberstar and company want to pass a full six-year authorization bill by September, while the Administration favors an 18-month transitional bill to patch the soon-to-be insolvent Highway Trust Fund.

At the forefront of the administration proposal is a $20 billion transfer from the general fund to keep the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts in the Highway Trust Fund from going bankrupt, keeping them solvent until March 2011. They propose to return the money to the general fund over 10 years.

In a section titled “Downpayment on Reform,” the administration outlines three proposals, including $310 million to help states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) voluntarily improve their project evaluation process, helping them choose worthy projects based on data , preparing them “for improved accountability standards and merit criteria in the long-term reauthorization.”

The second proposal would provide $10 million for “USDOT to develop performance goals and establish guidelines for states and localities on project evaluation.” And in language that sounds similar to the stimulus spending, the third proposal aims to improve the transparency and accountability in transportation spending, to “lay the groundwork for further accountability reforms in the long-term reauthorization.”

Lastly is a section on livable communities and improving regional access:

Livability: developing guidelines for community plans and providing funding for approved projects with special emphasis on convenience of transportation options, reductions in travel times, smart growth, preservation of open space, and more integrated responses to land use and transportation needs.

Chairman Oberstar is still opposed to any extension and it’s worth noting that any 18-month proposal would have to pass through his committee in the House. Read the full memo to Congress below. (more…)

How have states fared with the billions in transportation stimulus funds?

You may recall that the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that passed in February had nearly $30 billion allocated for transportation investments. That money was given out to states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) — largely free of any criteria or requirements for what projects it should be spent on.

Smart Growth America released a report today examining how well states have been spending these billions. As they say on the Smart Growth America blog today, not only did the money arrive in a time of economic recession, but “at a time of embarrassingly large backlogs of road and bridge repairs, inadequate and underfunded public transportation systems, and too-few convenient, affordable transportation options.”

So after 120 days, how have states done in addressing these pressing needs and investing in progress for their communities?

After analyzing project descriptions provided by states and MPOs, Smart Growth America found forward looking states and communities that used the stimulus money as flexibly as possible, repairing roads and bridges and making the kinds of smart, 21st century transportation investments that their communities need to support strong economic growth.

Other states and communities missed this golden opportunity to create jobs while making progress on their most pressing transportation needs. These states spent their precious funds on building new roads rather than repairing existing roads, and ignored the chance to spend the money flexibly on the kinds of options that their residents really want — like public transportation or streets safe for walking and biking — leaving their communities stuck in traffic and stuck in the past.

…Despite the golden opportunity of extra funding, most states did not use the opportunity to make as much progress as possible on long-term goals. Even though repair backlogs can stretch years or decades into the future, nearly one-third of the money, $6.6 billion, went towards roadway new capacity projects. At a time when public transportation ridership is hitting all-time highs and the budget crunch is causing transit agencies to cut routes, service and jobs, an abysmal 2.8% was spent on public transportation. Only 0.9% percent was spent on non-motorized projects (i.e., bike and pedestrian projects).

Read more about the report and download the full version from Smart Growth America.

What does Oberstar’s proposal do for the New Starts transit program?

MetroRail, Preston Station, Downtown Houston Originally uploaded by euthman
Riders wait for the train at a stop on Houston’s new light rail line

Americans are taking the train (and the bus) like never before, and public transportation ridership reached its highest level in more than 50 years in 2008. More than 25 new light rail or streetcar systems have opened in the last 30 years, and communities across the country are looking to relieve congestion, spur urban development, and provide their residents with more options for getting around.

In the last two years, new light rail lines have opened in what might be considered the unlikely locales of Phoenix, Arizona, Houston, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina. According to numbers from Reconnecting America, the newly-opened Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis and the Red Line in Houston outperformed their ridership projections 15 years ahead of schedule.

What’s clear from these examples is that cities of all sizes are looking to meet the burgeoning demand for quality public transportation service. Of course, with Chairman James Oberstar’s 90-page proposal for the next transportation bill coming out this morning from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we are left with an important question — how would these current or future transit systems fare under his proposed program?

Getting approval for New and Small Starts — two federal programs that distribute funds for the construction of transit capital projects — has become a cumbersome process, taking an average of 10 years for transit projects to move through planning and design phases to receive a grant.

Under the previous administration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) began unduly weighting cost-effectiveness (CEI) — or how much travel time was saved per dollar spent — as the primary factor when considering which projects to fund. As Oberstar’s proposal states, this method has given “inadequate consideration to other important benefits that new transit projects bring to communities.” Benefits such as economic development spurred by new transit lines, increased access to jobs and housing, reduced emissions and energy consumption per capita and the efficient land use and walkable neighborhoods that often result from new transit investments have been swept aside in favor of this “cost effectiveness” metric.

Chairman Oberstar’s proposal for the transportation bill contains some proposed revisions to the New/Small Starts program that could speed up the approval process and make sure that all of the benefits of new public transportation service are considered.

Oberstar’s proposal contains two key reforms: The first would streamline the program application and approval process by eliminating overly burdensome steps and paperwork. (p.43) And perhaps more importantly, his second proposal “equalizes the treatment of proposed transit projects and elevates the importance of the benefits that will occur in the community once the project is built.” This essentially means that the other positive benefits from transit would be considered when deciding what projects to fund.

Underneath that recommendation in the proposal is a list of some new requirements that could even the playing field and broaden the range of grants given out to new transit projects. Here are three notable ones:

  • Require the FTA to consider all benefits of proposed projects in relation to the proposed Federal investment level.
  • Eliminate the requirement that projects be rated based on “cost-effectiveness,” which considers time savings to users as the only benefit of projects.
  • Require FTA to weigh all benefits comparably, including economic development, energy savings, increased mobility and access, and congestion relief.

Hopefully, these two reforms would streamline the New & Small Starts process and ensure that the federal governments considers more of the benefits that transit brings to communities when deciding which projects to fund. But the details in the full bill will be key. The outline lacks some concrete information on how much focus will be placed on creating transit-oriented development and affordable housing — both of which can help boost ridership numbers and cost-effectiveness. If we want to accurately account for all potential benefits of transit investments, T4 America believes that we need to link development, housing and public transportation to reflect the deep connection between these issues.

Some details on Chairman Oberstar’s transportation proposal

Read T4 America’s official statement on the release of the summary outline by Chairman James Oberstar.

We’ll have a number of posts today and tomorrow breaking down some of the notable spending levels and reforms proposed in Chairman Oberstar’s outline of the transportation bill. In the meantime, we thought we’d give you a few details that we’ve looked over while scanning the outline of the bill this morning. Note that today’s 11 a.m. press conference — which will included a longer version of the proposal — has been delayed until 2 p.m. due to “House votes.”

According to Oberstar’s summary, the upcoming bill will restructure and transform federal transportation policy away from multiple “prescriptive programs” into a “performance-based framework” “designed to achieve specific national objectives.”

The outline calls for terminating and consolidating more than 75 of the 108 total programs into a few broad large program areas, but it maintains current funding silos between separate modes. Here’s a quick breakdown. (Remember that these numbers are not final, and could be very different when the bill is released next week.)

  • Highways: $337.4 billion (75%) of $450 billion
  • Transit: $98.8 billion (22.2%) of $450 billion
  • Safety Programs: $12.6 billion (2.8%) of $450 billion

Its important to note that the $98.8 billion in proposed transit funds is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how much money public transportation would receive in total. Oberstar’s outline includes $50 billion for a new “Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program,” which will “provide significant funding to help the largest metropolitan regions address congestion,” and a refocused “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (CMAQ). While money for both of these programs are included in the highway allocation, it would be possible under the proposal to spend these funds on public transportation projects to achieve the stated goals of CMAQ and the Metropolitan Mobility programs.

Chairman Oberstar’s outline also calls for $50 billion to develop high-speed rail — in addition to the money in the stimulus package and yearly appropriations bill for this year — an area of transportation that has never received funding in previous transportation legislation.

Oberstar told Congressional Quarterly this morning that he is still planning on releasing full bill text and marking up the bill in his Highways and Transit Subcommittee next week.

Check back later today for more details and analysis.

Sec. LaHood proposes 18-month extension of current transportation bill

This morning on Capitol Hill, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood proposed an 18-month extension of the current SAFETEA-LU transportation authorization bill. Beyond simply extending the current bill, LaHood indicated that he wants to include some reforms in the 18-month extension — including a focus on metro areas, extensive cost-benefit analysis, and a commitment to “livable communities” — but was short on other specifics.

No word yet on how this will affect the proposed transportation bill outline to be released by Rep. James Oberstar tomorrow morning. Be sure to check back over the next few days for the latest.

From the DOT press room:

“This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect.

“As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country.

“I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach. However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.”

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has a story up covering LaHood’s proposal, and includes a quote from Rep. Oberstar, responding to the idea of an extension:

In a meeting with reporters Wednesday, Mr. Oberstar was adamant that Congress must pass a new law before the current one expires.

“Extension of current law is unacceptable,” Mr. Oberstar said. “Now is the time to move.”

UPDATE 2: Michael Cooper of the New York Times covers the proposed extension, and gets a statement from Jim Berard, spokesman for Rep. Oberstar. “The chairman is not too pleased with the administration’s proposal,” he said.

Planning for the future: Washington’s new Woodrow Wilson Bridge

A New Trail Originally uploaded by M.V. Jantzen.
A bicyclist cruises along I-495/95 on the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge “active transportation lane,” leading to the rare sight of someone not in a car using the Capital Beltway. View more photos of the opening on Flickr from Eric Gilliland, director of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (a T4 partner.)

Two weekends ago, the 12-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian lane of the Woodrow Wilson interstate bridge over the Potomac River held its grand opening in Washington DC, filling with bikers and walkers who can now join the thousands of cars that cross the bridge each day.

The bridge, which connects Virginia and Maryland on the southern part of the Capital Beltway, is a vital transportation link in the region, where Interstate 95 (and the large majority of truck traffic) bypasses Washington, continuing north or south along the eastern seaboard.

Hundreds of bicyclists enjoyed a ride across the bridge for the first time ever last weekend, and the renovations to the bridge also added dedicated space for a future transit line — not something you see everyday on an interstate bridge in the United States.

Building a new bridge to replace the 1961 bridge had been discussed for decades, but the planning kicked into high gear in the 1990’s, with Maryland, Virginia, and the federal government all engaged in the process (DC relinquished control to the states.)

Branch Ave and King Street Metro
The King Street (Virginia) and Branch Avenue (Maryland) Metro stops are separated by just a few miles and the Potomac River, but require a long ride into DC to travel between the two on the Metrorail system. One day, Metro might cross the Wilson Bridge instead.

Looking at a map of the Metrorail public transportation system, one can see that only a few miles separate the end of the green line in Maryland and the yellow and blue lines in Virginia. There was no active work to connect the two lines, but a handful of people in the planning process wondered about dedicating some space on the bridge for a future, useful Metro connection.

Parris Glendening, Governor of Maryland from 1995-2003, said that planning for a future transit connection was just common sense.

“Those stations are just a few miles apart as the crow flies, but no one in Maryland who has a choice is going to ride all the way up into DC to switch trains and ride all the way back out to Virginia — and end up only a few miles from where they started,” he said. (more…)

Updated news on the transportation bill outline release

After much back-and-forth on times and dates today, we think this information is pretty solid: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar is holding an invitation-only press conference Wednesday, June 17th at 11 a.m. to talk with invited media outlets about the white paper and outline for the upcoming transportation bill.

24 hours later, on Thursday, June 18th at 11 a.m., he’s going to hold an open press conference (we’ll be there) to do the same thing all over again with everyone else.

We have heard that Chairman Oberstar is releasing a 12-page paper and a 100-page outline of the bill over the next two days and it’s likely that at least one of those — probably the shorter white paper — will be released Wednesday at 11 a.m for the first briefing.

As always, check in with our Twitter feed @T4America for the most up-to-the-minute news.

What do Americans really think about spending on transportation?

Parade Magazine has an article about transportation up on their website that includes an online poll. They question asks readers, “should America divert some funding from highways and bridges to invest in public transit?”

There are many problems with this question, but even with the false framing of this debate, results are currently split near the 50/50 mark. The most glaring issue with the poll is that it makes it seem like there’s something written in stone determining that federal transportation money is “roads” money — instead of money that should be spent on whatever can best keep us moving and give us the most bang for our buck.

Spending money on public transportation or other transportation options won’t prevent us from repairing and maintaining our existing roads and bridges. In fact, our roads and bridges aren’t in poor shape because we don’t spend enough on roads overall — it’s because we’ve neglected to maintain our existing roadways and instead spent taxpayer dollars on more new roads and highways, whether or not these were the best investments of our transportation dollars

Regardless of where we’ve spent money in the past or “what we used to do,” people are ready for something different.

Rather than asking Americans if we should “take” money from roads, what happens when you ask Americans a more basic questions: “Where should we spend our transportation money?”

Earlier this year, Transportation for America and the National Association of Realtors did just that in our own poll. (Background on the poll here and here). The bottom line? An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over road-building alone.

Given that the U.S. population will increase by one-hundred million people by 2050, which of the following transportation approaches do you prefer to accommodate this growth?

Build and improve rail systems, such as commuter rail, light rail, and subways Build new highways and freeways Not sure
75% 20% 5%


I’m going to mention types of transportation, and I’d like you to tell me which one or two you think are not getting enough attention and emphasis from the federal government.

Trains or light rail systems Roads Buses Bike paths or trails Sidewalks None Not sure
56% 27% 21% 15% 14% 2% 3%


Many communities experience traffic congestion. I’m going to read you two statements about traffic congestion and I’d like you to tell me which of these is closer to your view: A) Some people say that we need to build more roads and expand existing roads to help reduce traffic congestion. B) Some people say that we need to improve public transportation, including trains and buses, and make it easier to walk and bike to help reduce traffic congestion. Which of these is closer to your view?

Improve public transportation Build more roads and expand existing roads Not sure
67% 27% 6%

Which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your area?

Improving public transportation Developing communities where people do not have to drive as much Building new roads Not sure
47% 25% 20% 8%


As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?

Maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges Expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation Expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges Not sure
50% 31% 16% 3%

Today’s briefing on Complete Streets — and the view from Decatur, Georgia

Decatur Mayor Bill Floyd Originally uploaded by TimothyJ
Mayor Bill Floyd of Decatur, Georgia helped get complete streets policies adopted in his city, resulting in a safer, more livable enjoyable city. Tell your representatives to support the Complete Streets Act of 2009 in the House and Senate.

With the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and a few of our key partners this morning, Transportation for America held a briefing on Capitol Hill about Complete Streets — and how putting complete streets into the next transportation bill will go a long way towards improving health, safety and livability for Americans.

Tell your representatives to support the Complete Streets Act of 2009 in the House and Senate.

Decatur, Georgia Mayor Bill Floyd, one of the panelists, told the story of how building complete streets in Decatur have made the city safer and more livable for its residents and visitors. Decatur, a city of about 18,000 just six miles east of downtown Atlanta, adopted ‘complete streets’ policies to ensure that their roadways get designed and improved for all users. But it wasn’t easy to do, and Mayor Floyd said they still face numerous hurdles from the state government.

Why do we need a federal law? Because current plans require variances from GDOT (Georgia Department of Transportation). For every project, it takes a variance. If we got a bike and sidewalk approved, and went back for another one, we’d have to get another variance. Federal laws are applied differently from state to state even.

Just like many Georgia cities, it has several state-maintained highways that pass through it. And those get treated the same way by the Georgia Department of Transportation whether they run through urban Decatur or rural south Georgia.

He pointed specifically to a mid-block crosswalk in downtown — where pedestrians come and go all day long  from the MARTA transit hub, shops, and restaurants — with a raised crosswalk and a yield sign in the road between the lanes of traffic. He pointed to a photo of the crossing and noted “that mid-lane crossing sign is in violation of GDOT — they call it a vehicle impediment.”  They succeeded in getting the road de-classified as a state highway — a long, difficult process, but one that resulted in them being able to control the design of the road.

One of the biggest reasons why Decatur wants streets safe for walking and biking has to do with their 3,000 children. The city, while only 4 square miles in size, has its own school system with pre-K all the way up to Decatur High School right off the city square. As a result many kids in the city should be within a mile of their school, and those children should be able to walk or bike to school. “Kids love to walk to school and ride those bikes,” Mayor Floyd said. But the streets just weren’t safe enough.

They utilized money in the Safe Routes to School Program (yes, the one proposed for cuts) to improve the safety of their streets, giving kids the chance to be outside and get some incidental exercise on their way to and from school.

Research shows that well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, intersections, and other street features to accommodate all modes of travel can significantly reduce injuries, deaths, and automobile crashes. Communities adopting the complete streets approach are discovering additional benefits including higher rates of physical activity among residents—an important factor for improved health—and more vibrant business districts and neighborhoods.

Tell your representatives to support the Complete Streets Act of 2009 in the House and Senate.

Highway Trust Fund could need as much as $17 billion to stay in the black

Flickr photo originally uploaded by Madison Guy

In September last year, Congress had to provide an emergency infusion of $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund for the first time in history to keep it from going broke. This transfer of cash from the general fund to an account that is supposed to be completely self-supporting showed us that our transportation system is in serious financial trouble.

Unfortunately, we’re expecting the Highway Trust Fund to run out of money even sooner this year.

News broke yesterday that the Obama administration is telling members of the U.S. Senate that the fund — which pays for projects approved in the transportation bill — will go broke by August if an emergency infusion of at least $7 billion isn’t approved. And it could need as much as $10 billion more to make it through the next fiscal year, which ends in September 2010.

With Congress talking about a transportation bill this year in the range of $450 billion and current gas tax revenues failing to cover the costs of the last $286 billion transportation bill, it’s clear that we need a new method of paying for our transportation infrastructure. We’re driving less and less, not just because of expensive gas, but also due to changing demographics and consumer preferences, and it’s unlikely that gas tax revenues will go up any time soon.

Predictably, many sensible voices are calling for the gas tax to be raised, which has been going down in real terms as inflation increases and the tax stays fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon. Both of the Congressionally-mandated transportation study commissions recommended an increase in the gas tax. But while we certainly more money from some somewhere to pay for the transportation investments we need, it’s imperative that we change the broken system before we pour new money into it.

The way things works now, states are esssentially encouraged have their residents drive more to increase gas tax revenues, which allows them to contribute more to the federal government and get more money back in return. We need a system that encourages states to improve mobility and safety, reduce congestion, and meet other performance measures, instead of building new roads to increase miles driven.

We need a federal transportation system that works, not the same broken thing at twice the price.

No new money without reforming the broken system.

Help Dan. Save Traffic

Dan loves traffic. But Congress could take it all away when they consider this year’s reauthorization of the federal transportation bill. Will they give us the kinds of transportation options that could suck the lifeblood right out of traffic? Or will they simply pump more money into a broken system. Dan is waiting to find out.

From the T4 America Youtube Channel.

New policy paper: Transportation in small towns and rural regions

Check out the sixth in our ongoing series of policy briefs. These policy briefs are short, four-page, concise summaries of an issue with interesting facts and some clear recommendations for improvement through the federal transportation bill. Download this Brief (pdf)

Smaller towns and rural communities face a different set of issues than urban or suburban America, and we need a transportation program that recognizes those differences, provides access for all people, and helps them succeed economically.

In our webinar two weeks ago, we talked about transportation challenges and solutions in smaller towns and rural areas, and we  encourage you to download the accompanying policy brief on Transportation, Small Towns and Rural Communities.

As the policy brief makes clear, our current transportation program leaves rural communities stranded.

Providing access to jobs and the economy is critical for these rural areas and smaller towns. Unfortunately, since many of the decisions about how to invest in transportation are made at the state and federal level, local residents often have little say over how their transportation dollars are spent.

The 56 million residents of rural areas and small towns – about 20 percent of the population of the United States – often fall through the cracks of federal transportation policy.

These towns have higher concentrations of elderly and low-income citizens, who face unique challenges in accessing their jobs, school or civic life. In addition, children in rural areas are 25 percent more likely to be overweight or obese than those in urban areas and face unique barriers to being active and maintaining a healthy weight.

Consider five short facts from this brief:

  • More than 1.6 million rural households do not have access to a car.
  • Demand for better transportation is growing — between 2002 and 2005, ridership for small urban and rural public transportation systems jumped nearly 20 percent.
  • Across America, households in the lowest 20 percent income bracket spend about 42 percent of their annual income on transportation. This burden is especially heavy during periods of high energy costs, since residents of rural areas drive about 17 percent more than than urban residents.
  • Limited transportation options are causing traffic congestion in small towns and rural areas to increase by 11 percent per year, twice the rate of large, urban areas.
  • There are more than 450,000 rural bridges, and almost half of the bridges more than 20 feet long are structurally deficient. 58 percent of highway fatalities occur on rural roads, a rate twice that of urban roads.

Rural transportation connects people to jobs, health care, and family and contributes to regional economic growth by linking businesses to customers, goods to markets, and tourists to destinations. Research has shown that rural and small metropolitan transit services offer measurable economic benefits. In one study, rural counties with transit service were found to have 11 percent greater average net earnings growth over counties without transit, and the estimated annual impact of rural public transportation on the national economy was over $1.2 billion.

Bottom line? Our nation’s transportation infrastructure should provide access for all Americans, regardless of their geographic location, age, income, or disability status. We need to care for our existing transportation network, while ensuring that we build a 21st century system that will allow residents of rural communities, small cities, and small towns to thrive.

Check out the webinars page to listen to or watch a recording of our recent session on this topic.

Choosing where to invest transportation dollars in Houston

I-45 in Houston after Hurricane Ike
I-45 in Houston unusually empty after Hurricane Ike. From Flickr user codydildy

We wanted to highlight this piece from Reuters’ Infrastructure Summit — especially an appearance by T4 America Partner The Citizens’ Transportation Coalition. Chairwoman Robin Holzer and the CTC have been working hard to bring attention to one of the most wasteful projects receiving money from the stimulus, using it as one more example to show how “the federal transportation funding system is broken, it’s just broken.”

(Our good friends at Streetsblog just beat us to the punch and posted the story, so we’ll summarize and point you there.)

While bridges crumble and roadways crack, and the poor state of our infrastructure far outweighs the amount of money we intend to spend on maintaining what we already have, we’re sending $181 million in stimulus funds to Houston to build a section of a new outer loop highway (the outer outer outer outer loop, to be completely correct.)

In the piece, Robin Holzer discusses the waste of building an unneeded new highway — but more pointedly, how spending scarce federal funds on an unnecessary project will keep Houston from spending money where the investment (or repair) is needed the most.

From Ben Fried’s post on Streetsblog:

Reuters just wrapped up a two-day “Infrastructure Summit” and published a great collection of stories about the state of transportation policy in the U.S. I especially like this piece, featuring Robin Holzer of the Houston-based Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, who does a great job illustrating some of the major deficiencies that the federal stimulus bill failed to address:

Under the current system that U.S. President Barack Obama has maintained, at least for now, the U.S. government will pay as much as 80 percent of the multibillion dollar cost of a proposed 180-mile ring road around Houston — its fourth such loop — even though it serves a thinly populated rural area.

In contrast, an expansion of the city’s light-rail system is only eligible for getting 50 percent of the cost paid by the federal government, she said.

Yet more than 147,000 people live within a half-mile of the ten stations on the light rail system, Holzer said.

Aloha Complete Streets!

Great news coming out of Hawai’i today, where a burgeoning coalition of passionate advocates were able to get a statewide complete streets policy signed by the Governor. (For more background on Complete Streets, visit T4 America partner the National Complete Streets Coalition.)

The One Voice for Livable Islands Coalition brought together biking, walking, health and other advocates to help raise awareness about the dangerous situation on Hawai’i’s roads — and how a complete streets bill could help make the streets safer and more accessible for everyone.

“This bill is great for Hawaii,” says Jackie Boland, Associate State Director for coalition member AARP Hawaii, in the One Voice release (.doc). “We’ve been very concerned about the number of pedestrian and cycling fatalities and are pleased that Hawai’i’s policymakers have decided to proactively address this issue at the planning stages of a transportation project.”

There were a total of 54 pedestrian fatalities in the last three years, and per capita, Hawai’i is the most dangerous state for pedestrians over 65. Local station KGMB reported on the increase in seniors and the policy.

With the elderly population expected to double in the next two decades, AARP Hawaii is calling for safer, complete streets. “Complete streets are desperately needed,” said Lolena Nicholas, AARP Hawaii.  The complete streets law would take into account all users of the road. Not just cars but bicyclists, pedestrians, the elderly and disabled.

Hawai’i’s policy comes right on the heels of an executive order from Delaware Governor Markell, directing the Delaware state transportation department to create a policy to “promote safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages to be able to safely move along and across the streets of Delaware.”

Hawai’i’s bill marks the 92nd policy at any level passed in the U.S. But even as cities like Rochester, MN and states like Hawaii are passing their own policies, there is still a chance to get complete streets enacted at the federal level — requiring that any roads built with federal dollars consider the needs of all users while in the planning process.

Complete streets bills are still circulating in Congress, and T4 America and The National Complete Streets Coalition are looking for legislators to sign on and co-sponsor these important bills.

It’s not too late. Write your member of Congress today and tell them to support or co-sponsor this important legislation.