The House’s debt ceiling package, H.R. 2811, proposes cuts to several programs, including the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program established under the Inflation Reduction Act. In response, T4A Director Beth Osborne issued the following statement:
“The Neighborhood Access and Equity Program is a valuable, needed investment that will support local economic development and knit communities back together across overbuilt and obsolete roadways. Governments across the country are looking for federal partners to build safer, better connected, and more prosperous communities. The program has not even begun, so now is not the time to strip the program’s funding. But that’s exactly what the House’s debt ceiling package H.R. 2811, also known as the ‘Limit, Save, Grow Act,’ would do.
“That’s why we’re leading a sign-on letter with organizations nationwide calling on Congress to keep the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program fully funded so we can realize the benefits of these critical investments.”
This letter can only be signed by elected officials and those authorized to represent their organization.
A new report shows splitting clean transit funds between zero-emission vs. low-emission is holding U.S. transit agencies back from cleaning up the bus fleet.
WASHINGTON—A new report by Transportation for America (T4A), “Greener Fleets: Meeting the Demand for Clean Transit,” examines the Low or No Emission Vehicle (“Low No”, “5339(c)”) and Buses and Bus Facilities (“5339(b)”) grant programs. The report finds that zero-emission projects were in high demand, representing 95% of Low No funds requested in applications last year, and relatively few project applications were funded. In comparison, low-emission projects made up such a small proportion of applications that nearly all applications were funded with money left over in that category.
Higher demand for zero-emission grants significantly lowered the probability of accessing zero-emission project funds. The report finds that this discrepancy could incentivize transit agencies to change their clean transit plans in favor of low-emission vehicles that still pollute. Click here to read the report, executive summary and access graphics.
“Seeing this kind of demand for electric public transit buses shows that America is ready for mass adoption, and we need to revise these programs to reflect that new reality,” said Chris Rall, outreach director for T4A. “Our number one recommendation to improve the programs is to remove the outdated and arbitrary split between zero- vs. low-emission categories to ensure 100% of the funds find their best use.”
U.S.-based transit fleets compete for Low No program grants to help them transition to the lowest polluting and most energy-efficient transit vehicles. Last year, the program received $1,105,329,750 in funding, of which 25% must go to low-emission buses and facilities such as diesel hybrid buses, compressed natural gas (CNG) buses and fueling infrastructure. The remaining 75% is for using electricity and/or hydrogen as a fuel for zero-emission buses and facilities. The report finds that this 75-25% funding split is unsustainable.
“As an industry leader in clean transit, we see Low No funds as essential for helping transit agencies like ours transition to modern electric buses that deliver service at a lower operational cost with zero tailpipe emissions,” said Corey Aldridge, CEO and General Manager of Mountain Line, Missoula, Montana’s transit agency, which has been transitioning its fixed route fleet to be fully electric since 2017. “The data in this report is intriguing. We encourage the legislature to consider its recommendations. Updates to the program could help fleet managers access the cleanest vehicle technologies that make the most sense for them.”
Using data collected from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the T4A research team analyzed applications submitted by American transit agencies to the Low No and 5339(b) programs funding.
TOP FINDINGS
Overall, transit agency-requested funding exceeded awards by over 4.5 times in the combined programs. Requested zero-emissions project funding made up 86% of all requested funding.
Low-emission projects in the Low No program were so undersubscribed that every low-emission applicant received an award regardless of the project rating (Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended).
In contrast, applicants with zero-emission projects had only a 33% chance of receiving any funding. In the 5339(b) program their chances were even lower, at just 18%.
“Congress’s goal was not to drive a shift in demand and investment toward low-emission projects at the expense of investments in zero-emission transit,” continued Rall. “This trend could lock transit agencies into more polluting technologies for decades.”
The report concludes that this unbalanced dynamic creates a strong incentive for agencies to avoid applying for zero-emission projects and instead use the Low No program to apply for funding for diesel-electric hybrid buses. This is already evidenced by the fact that applications for low-emission projects are up for the 2023 application window.
Here is a summary of the report’s recommendations for improving the programs:
Eliminate the arbitrary requirement that 25% of Low No funding goes to low-emission vehicles.
Increase funding for both 5339(b) and Low No to meet the overall demand for buses and facilities.
Create incentives for both programs to leverage state, regional, utility, and local funding to encourage applicants to propose zero-emission projects at scale and increase the return on investment.
Reduce the matching funding requirements of Tribes and Justice40 communities.
Increase transparency by making basic application and award information available on the Federal Transit Administration’s website.
Simplify the application process and help agencies understand how to make their applications competitive.
“As the market of zero-emission vehicles grows and changes, so must our programs that support the transition,” said Rall. “The increased demand for zero-emission projects is a good thing. We can update these programs to make them better for transit agencies that want to save money and clean up their air.”
“The Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District has stepped out as a leader in transitioning to zero emission vehicles. Our hydrogen fuel cell electric buses run on hydrogen that we produce on-site utilizing 100% renewable solar energy, said Karl Gnadt, managing director for Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD). “The remainder of our fleet is made up completely of hybrid buses so we have long appreciated the value of low emission vehicles as well. However, as zero emission technologies advance, we believe it is time to focus on a national transition to zero emission buses. Removing the dedicated low emission set aside within the Lo-No grant program will allow the program to be more responsive to transit’s needs.”
Amtrak and SRC submit a planning grant that will expand long-distance passenger rail service along the I-20 Corridor and in the Deep South.
Today, the Southern Rail Commission and Amtrak announced their application for a Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant from the Federal Railroad Administration for the I-20 Corridor—the first concrete steps to expand long-distance passenger rail service in decades. This grant would fund planning efforts for a new passenger rail service from Fort Worth, TX, across Mississippi and Louisiana, to Atlanta, GA, and is a critical step in bringing connectivity to communities along the route.
“This route will be one more arrow in the economic quiver for small and midsize communities across the Deep South,” said Beth Osborne,Director of Transportation for America. “We thank Amtrak for their leadership in moving this expansion forward, and we applaud Canadian Pacific for setting an example by serving as a willing and strong partner throughout this process. We look forward to seeing the completion of this route, which has been a long time coming, and hope for similar results in the greater Northwest and Mid-Atlantic, as well as all other underserved parts of the country.”
The I-20 Corridor has been previously studied twice for passenger rail and was determined to be an excellent candidate. The corridor includes numerous underserved and historically disadvantaged communities that will benefit from better transportation options. The rail line would link communities along the route to universities and larger cities, opening the door to attracting a bright young workforce, increasing economic opportunity, and bringing a sense of place to their downtowns. Amtrak’s decision to move forward with plans for the expansion comes before the FRA’s long-distance rail study, which was mandated under the 2021 infrastructure law, demonstrating tremendous initiative to move the project forward.
Partnerships between freight companies and passenger rail providers have been pivotal in moving this expansion along. Freight railroad Canadian Pacific acquired the route from KC Southern, and they’ve proven to be a willing and supportive partner to passenger rail. They will work to implement service for at least one round trip per year within two years, and two round trips within four years.
On Monday, CSX, Norfolk Southern, the Alabama State Port Authority, and Amtrak filed a motion to the Surface Transportation Board stating that they’d reached an agreement to restore passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast. In response, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne issued the following statement:
Transportation for America is pleased that the Port of Mobile, CSX, and Norfolk Southern have reached an agreement with Amtrak, clearing the way for Amtrak to restore the long-awaited passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast. This settlement is a tremendous victory for the Gulf, but its impact extends beyond those states. The restoration of this service is pivotal for expanding passenger service across the nation, making good on the promise of the 2021 infrastructure law.
This settlement is a clear indication that we can find mutually-agreeable resolutions that benefit both freight and passenger rail—shippers and the people they serve. We thank the Federal Railroad Administration for making a strong stand to precisely that effect. We also commend the Surface Transportation Board for their leadership in guiding the parties through mediation to reach this agreement.
For freight, this is an opportunity to strengthen their partnerships with elected officials. For Amtrak, it is a call to action for the Board to use their collective authority to further the expansion of passenger rail. Urban and rural communities across the country have been closely monitoring this process, and they can now look at this agreement with hope for the expansion of passenger rail. We stand ready to help them achieve this goal.
Amtrak has a workforce crisis on its hands. While the COVID-19 pandemic brought many of these problems to light, it did not create them. Mistakes by Amtrak’s leadership long before COVID-19 led to a slowly diminishing workforce and service impacts, which the pandemic exacerbated. Now, with a historic federal investment in passenger rail, how can Amtrak pivot and get back on the right track? The answer may lie in the company’s recent history.
John Robert Smith is Chair of T4America and policy advisor for Smart Growth America. He served for 16 years as mayor of Meridian, MS, whose Union Station, his signature project, is recognized as one of the best multi-modal transportation centers in the country. He then served on the Amtrak Board of Directors, where he shepherded the company through Congressional defunding, the launch of Acela, and the restoration of 7 day/week national service. At T4A, he now advocates for more equitable and regionally diverse expansion of national passenger rail service.
The history: Amtrak in crisis
In 1995, federal budget cuts slashed Amtrak’s budget to $750 million, a six-year low. Amtrak, facing Congressional pressure to reduce its expenses but wishing to preserve full Northeast Corridor service, suspended service from seven days per week to three days per week along much of the national network.
For John Robert Smith, then mayor of Meridian, Mississippi, that was an unworkable plan. He was overseeing the construction of the South’s first multimodal transportation center, with the city’s Union Station at its center. He knew, having planned for seven day/week rail service through his city, that cutting service to less than half would be an inefficient use of Amtrak’s resources, which would sit idle when not in service, still incurring fixed expenses. He watched Amtrak cut its workforce and service nationwide and feared this would cause long-term losses in ridership and not result in the cost savings Amtrak thought it would.
His fears came to pass. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that “during fiscal year 1996, Amtrak’s overall ridership dropped by 1.1 million passengers, or 5 percent, and anticipated reductions in operating costs were not realized on routes with reduced frequency of service.” Testifying before Congress in 2000, Amtrak President George Warrington admitted that “all of those eliminations back in 1995 and 1996 ended up costing the company more in lost revenue than we were able to take out in the way of expenses, given the fixed-cost nature of the operation.”
The change: Better trains, regardless of funding
Recognized by Congress for his successes in building the South’s first multimodal transportation center, Smith was appointed to the Amtrak Board of Directors in 1998. This meant he was thrust into the center of the effort to recover from the disastrous decisions made by Amtrak in 1995. He knew that three day per week service would result in inefficient use of staff and equipment. So he built relationships with both sides of the aisle in Congress, convincing Senate leaders to restore Amtrak’s national seven day per week service to much of the national network. For example, opposition to Amtrak funding had mostly come from Republicans, so Smith spoke with his senator, Trent Lott (R-MS), about the economic benefits of passenger rail for Mississippi, turning Lott into an ally within the party.
But Smith learned from very early on that Amtrak could not rely on steady funding to provide high-quality service. In 2000, Congress defunded Amtrak yet again, this time right before it launched the new high-speed Acela service (to much fanfare). While they did not have the money to boost the service as much as they would like, Amtrak was nonetheless dedicated to running high-quality trains. The Board personally ensured that on-board service on Acela trains would meet customer needs. They persistently marketed Acela as faster than air travel, even issuing a challenge for two reporters to race from the Washington, DC city center to Boston’s city center, one by airplane and one by Acela. The reporter on Acela arrived in Boston first. With airports located far from city centers and delays from air traffic control, weather, and security screenings, air travel was slower than Acela.
When Smith became Chairman of the Amtrak Board in 2002, the company had yet to fully recover from the previous decade’s workforce cuts despite eventually restoring Congressional funding. But Amtrak’s new president, David Gunn, was committed to building a stronger workforce from the ground up. Gunn visited railyards at 4:30 every morning to talk with the crews. He was committed to riding Amtrak to attend meetings so he could witness first hand the problems facing on-board crews. Morale among Amtrak’s labor force was high. Some employees printed t-shirts that read “Proud to Be Working Under the Gunn.”
Year to year, Amtrak’s ridership does not have a strong impact on its revenue. (Source: 2017 CRS report)
Due to the lapses in funding, Smith and Gunn often had to confront the possibility of bankruptcy. During the worst of their fiscal crisis, in the summer of 2002, they worked with the Bush Administration to secure an emergency $100 million loan to keep the company afloat. The loan conditions were hard, but the money kept Amtrak running and was critical to the rebuilding effort.
Despite stagnant federal support, high morale among workers translated to high-quality service. By 2007, Amtrak’s ridership reached a 15-year high. Despite some pressure to invest only in the “profitable” Northeast Corridor, Smith and the rest of the Board knew better. They had ridden the trains with their long-distance customers, who they knew would be loyal to Amtrak if Amtrak took care of them. Their success, on top of the honest relationships with Congressional staff built by Amtrak’s director of Government Affairs Joe McHugh, created trust in the halls of Congress. Smith, Gunn, and McHugh were able to convince senators like Lott, Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who had little else in common, to serve as Congressional champions for Amtrak service through each others’ states. Smith, Gunn, and McHugh also developed relationships with Senate Appropriations leaders Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) to ensure stable federal funding for years to come.
Throughout his tenure on the Amtrak Board of Directors, John Robert Smith believed in long distance service and its ability to support the rest of the organization. Smith’s trust in the loyalty of long distance customers was later vindicated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Amtrak was kept afloat largely by its long-distance customers outside the Northeast Corridor. As ridership continued to be depressed on the Northeast Corridor and state supported lines in April 2020, ticket revenues from long-distance trains rebounded much quicker, jumping 71 percent, from $6.8 million to $11.6 million.
Today: History repeats itself
The progress made by Amtrak leaders like Smith and Gunn is threatened by an Amtrak leadership that is repeating the mistakes the company made in the 1990s by once again furloughing much of its workforce and defunding its long-distance network.
Graphic detailing long distance service, from Amtrak’s FY 2021 Company Profile, showing the positive effect long distance service has on the company’s revenue.
When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States in 2020, Amtrak leadership decided to furlough 11 percent of its workforce, with another 20 percent reduction in 2021. These reductions mostly affected the company’s loyal long distance customers despite overwhelming evidence that these types of actions do not reduce long-term expenses and can indeed make service recovery much more difficult. Now crews are demoralized, evidenced by Amtrak’s struggle to attract furloughed employees back to their jobs. Remaining staff are overworked, threatening safety and customer care.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized a record $2.2 billion in annual funding for the national network, twice that of the Northeast Corridor. But as Amtrak proved in the late 1990s and early 2000s, funding does not guarantee high-quality service. And Amtrak is going in the wrong direction. Facing a drop in revenue due to the coronavirus Omicron variant in early 2022, Amtrak once again slashed long-distance service, hurting its most loyal customers. Many long distance routes have yet to recover.
John Robert Smith’s simple message for today’s Amtrak leadership
“Ride the trains unannounced and individually. See the same service your customer does. Ride lines other than the Northeast Corridor, and more than once. Leaders like myself and David Gunn knew what the company’s workforce and riders needed to thrive because we used the service we were providing nationwide. We moved our monthly board meetings out of Washington two or three times per year and traveled there on our trains.
Talk to the crews. Ask what they need. Ask them what it’s like to work an entire train alone. Talk to coach passengers who are not allowed to purchase meals from the diner if they don’t carry cash or if delays cause passengers to board after food service has ended. Many of them, especially along lower-income, more rural sections of the national network, do not own a credit card. Eat the food on the trains, which is often unhealthy and undesirable.
Focus on long-distance service. We’re seeing an increase in remote work, so business and commuter passengers might not come back to riding Amtrak. But long-distance passengers have proven their desire for more frequent trips.”
As Amtrak has proven in the past, success with long-distance customers can translate into success in Congress. Amtrak developed champions like Trent Lott and Frank Lautenburg in the past, and can develop champions like Roger Wicker and Maria Cantwell today. If Amtrak engages with its passengers and provides regionally diverse service, it can make passenger rail an issue of national consensus with allies across the aisle.
None of these goals are easy to achieve. They will require diligent time and effort. But they will pay off. At a time when Amtrak has unprecedented funding and national attention, the moment is too great to pass up.
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, we held a webinar to discuss how to maximize the impact of the new Reconnecting Communities Program.
Divisive infrastructure projects, like highways and overpasses built through neighborhoods, continue to restrict travel in cities across the country, creating congestion, hindering development, restricting access to economic opportunity, and worsening public health. Because many of these projects were built in close proximity to communities of color, these communities face disproportionate health, safety, and economic impacts.
In the new infrastructure law, the federal government finally provided a direct funding stream to address this problem. The Reconnecting Communities Program is a valuable federal investment that can begin to move the needle, but the extent of the problem has many wondering if this program’s budget will be enough to make a difference.
Watch our webinar from September 14, 2022 to find out how the Reconnecting Communities Program can be best leveraged to achieve an impact in your community. Director Beth Osborne and Policy Director Benito Pérez will unpack the Reconnecting Communities Program, explaining in clear terms how this program came to be and what it can accomplish. We will also be joined by Erik Frisch, Deputy Commissioner of Neighborhood & Business Development at the City of Rochester, who will describe how Rochester tackled the successful Inner Loop project long before the Reconnecting Communities Program existed, plus share insight into how the city plans to leverage this new source of funding in future projects.
Erik Frisch is Deputy Commissioner for the City of Rochester’s Department of Neighborhood & Business Development.
In this role since January 2022, Erik oversees the City’s Bureau of Business & Housing Development which is responsible for affordable, market-rate, and mixed-use housing programs, economic development initiatives, and real estate management. Mr. Frisch has been with the City of Rochester since 2007, also serving as Manager of Special Projects in the Department of Environmental Services (2018-2021), overseeing coordination of the ROC the Riverway initiative, a bold plan for Rochester’s urban waterfront along the Genesee River, and the Inner Loop North Transformation, and as the City’s Transportation Specialist (2007-2018), where he managed the City’s transportation planning, traffic calming, and traffic control functions. He has played a key role in many other major City initiatives, including the Inner Loop East Transformation, Bicycle Master Plan implementation, Midtown Rising, and Downtown Two-Way Traffic Conversion. Prior to working for the City, Erik served as a Program Manager with the Genesee Transportation Council for nearly six years. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Geography from Clark University in Worcester, MA and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from the University at Buffalo (NY).
Last month, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) proposed a new rule that will require states to measure and set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with highways. This is a critical tool to foster accountability and steer infrastructure investments toward better climate outcomes. It’s essential for the USDOT to finalize this rule and for states to lead the way in realizing its full potential.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure (GGEM), would require state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions tied to highways on the National Highway System (i.e. Interstates and US Routes). This proposal is a key action that Evergreen, Transportation for America, and other advocates have called for. Because the transportation sector emits more greenhouse gas pollution than any other sector of the American economy, data collected from this measure will be a vital tool to support investments in alternative transportation modes, better protect disadvantaged communities, and advance President Biden’s climate goals.
Following the enactment of the critical climate and infrastructure investments contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress and the Biden administration must each play a role in ensuring that these resources are implemented effectively and equitably. At the same time, increased ambition at the state level and bold executive action are essential in order to attain further emissions reductions. New federal rules that enable states to push the envelope are needed to tackle the largest sources of climate pollution, and that includes our transportation sector.
So what is this rule all about?
In 2012 Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), a two-year transportation authorization bill following nearly 3 years of stop-gap extensions. MAP-21 represented a tentative step towards accountability for the billions of dollars the federal government allocates to states every year for transportation, by codifying seven different performance categories for federal highway programs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created performance measures and subsequently required state DOTs to set performance targets aligned with these goals.
But a new and improved version of this measure is back, under the Biden administration. In early July, the FHWA proposed a new draft rule for a GGEM that would establish a method for state DOTs to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than a one-size-fits-all target set by the USDOT, states would be permitted to set their own unique declining targets that collectively lead the US towards net-zero emissions by 2050. Critically, the draft GGEM rule would require these targets to continuously decrease, to cut emissions over time in each state. The proposal is a big step forward from the status quo, but still limited in scope. For example, states face no penalties for failing to meet their established targets.
Here are the four actions the Biden administration and state DOTs must take for this proposal to be successful:
1. The Biden administration must finalize a strong performance measure rule ASAP
While the IIJA is not a transformative climate bill, states have a wide berth in deciding how to allocate formula funding under IIJA. The law also establishes new categories of climate mitigation funding, like the Carbon Reduction Program, and expands the kinds of investments eligible under legacy programs like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. In short, governors and state governments will determine, through the decisions they make about what to build, whether or not the IIJA leads to reductions in climate pollution. However, without the proposed rule, the public has no way to hold states accountable for reducing emissions with the windfall of infrastructure money from the IIJA.
Right now, the FHWA has opened a public comment period for the proposed rule through October 13, 2022. Just like in 2017, this rule is already meeting fierce resistance, from both industry and Senate Republicans.
Some stakeholders are falsely claiming that this proposed rulemaking is outside the scope of the performance measures set forth by Congress in MAP-21. Many congressional leaders who were involved in passing that legislation have set the record straight, emphasizing that this proposal will “fulfill the original congressional intent…” There is plenty of flexibility for states built into the existing rule and the Biden administration must finalize a strong performance measure.
2. The Biden administration should factor in state performance when evaluating other competitive grant programs, and FHWA should improve its performance dashboard
Although most federal transportation funding is formula-based, the USDOT can influence policy significantly through discretionary funds like the Secretary’s RAISE grants or the Reconnecting Communities Program. To ensure the greenhouse gas performance measure doesn’t just “sit on the shelf,” the department should assess the relative ambitions of state greenhouse gas reduction targets and progress states achieve as it awards competitive funds. The Biden administration should also incorporate implementation of the measure into criteria for new programs created by the Inflation Reduction Act, including the Neighborhood Access and Equity grant program and the EPA’s new Climate Pollution Reduction grants.
Moreover, because of the non-binding nature of the performance measure proposed, it’s essential that the emissions data and targets of each state are properly advertised and disseminated. This will allow the data to facilitate increased accountability. Right now, the FHWA’s dashboard for state performance data is buried on its website and the information is not frequently discussed or publicized. Going forward, the FHWA and the Office of the Secretary should reinvigorate the dashboard and regularly update stakeholders and the broader public regarding the progress states are making in setting and reaching their declining targets.
3. States should incorporate performance measures in state policy and go beyond USDOT’s proposal
Washington State’s Move Ahead Washington program invests in public transportation and other sustainable travel options. Flickr photo by SounderBruce
Because the targets required by the draft GGEM would be non-binding, it will ultimately be up to states to make their greenhouse gas targets meaningful in a local context. Going forward, states must better prioritize climate in transportation policy and funding decisions. Many states are already measuring greenhouse gas pollution in the transportation sector in some capacity and tailoring their long-range plans, short-term capital plans, and overall investment strategies accordingly. The following model policies should be considered as states move forward with accessing IIJA/IRA funding and implementing the performance measure.
Colorado: The Colorado Transportation Commission recently approved a new rule that will set mandatory greenhouse gas reduction goals for each MPO. These goals must be incorporated into investments identified in each region’s short and long-term transportation plans. The regional goals can be achieved by reprioritizing planned projects or investing in new mitigation strategies. In most cases, this will mean shifting investments away from the construction and expansion of highways and towards public transit and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Minnesota: Even as demand for electric vehicles has grown and the Biden administration acts to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States continue to increase. States have a tremendous opportunity to act where the federal government has not and institute policies that tackle auto dependency. Minnesota recently adopted a statewide goal to reduce VMT statewide by 20 percent by 2050. More states need to look beyond electric vehicles and work towards shifting travel towards the most sustainable and equitable modes of transportation.
Washington: Washington State DOT is not waiting for the federal government and has already implemented a performance measure for greenhouse gas pollution associated with the National Highway System infrastructure inside the state. Emissions and targets are reported to the federal government biennially. Earlier this year, Washington also enacted Move Ahead Washington, a significant transportation funding package that invests heavily in public transportation and other sustainable modes aimed at reducing car travel.
4. States should implement an equity-first approach to meeting targets
States will have significant discretion when deciding how and where to spend transportation-related IIJA funds, and they should ensure they deploy federal funds with a focus on communities that are already impacted by transportation planning and pollution. Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities suffer the most from vehicle pollution and are historically least likely to receive government investments. By prioritizing these underserved and overburdened communities, states can ensure they are supporting their most vulnerable populations while reducing pollution.
Additionally, state policymakers need to pay careful attention to wealth disparities between white users of the transportation system and people of color, which impact both mode choice and job access. States should consider new incentives for used electric vehicles to supplement the credit for used vehicles contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, and also need to take significant steps to build out networks of Complete Streets and make public transportation more reliable and affordable. Finally, state departments of transportation should prioritize investments that begin repairing past racist policy decisions that were meant to intentionally divide neighborhoods.
Key takeaway
The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States. Because most transportation investment decisions are made at the state level, the USDOT’s new Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure is a critical tool to foster accountability and steer infrastructure investments away from expanding highways and towards vehicle electrification, public transportation, and improvements for other sustainable modes of travel like biking and walking. It’s essential for the USDOT to finalize this rule and for states to lead the way in realizing its full potential.
This post was written by Mollie Dalbey and Stephen Coleman Kenny, members of the Transportation for America policy team.
The Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), a new formula program released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides states with $6.4 billion over 5 years for projects and strategies to reduce carbon emissions. However, thanks to a costly loophole, the program could end up making emissions worse.
Funds for the CRP could support more active transportation systems like protected bike lanes, but right now, it looks like spending is likely to be diverted to other projects. Flickr photo by Bart Everson.
The $6.4 billion Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), created under the new infrastructure law, is a substantial investment in carbon reduction. Under the program, each state must create detailed plans for how they will reduce transportation emissions. The money must be used to create and expand systems for public transit, active transportation (walking, biking, and rolling), congestion pricing, and other strategies to reduce emissions.
The CRP presents states with an opportunity to have a real impact on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. However, it’s important to note that this is just a small pile of cash compared to the other major funding streams in the infrastructure law, many of which states have traditionally used to make emissions worse. To effectively deliver on climate, states will have to move away from the status quo approach of building more and more roadways that increase emissions. That means they will need to make proper use of CRP funds and other federal dollars at their disposal.
Unfortunately, as we’ll cover below, there is little accountability to ensure states follow through, which means the FHWA will have a lot of work to do if it wants to get the most out of the CRP.
A high-emissions loophole
The CRP allows states to avoid using program funds for their intended purpose. State DOTs can flex up to 50 percent of CRP funds to other transportation projects including ones like highway expansions that increase emissions, as long as they records a reduction in carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, state reductions don’t have to be linked to any particular target. The FHWA is still developing their methodology for what emissions reductions will qualify for flexing funding out of the CRP, but all signs point to leniency. In other words, states that see reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions will be able to use carbon reduction funds to increase emissions. At the moment, the FHWA has not stated a specific level of carbon reduction required prior to flexing funds, which means states can start flexing funds to high-emissions projects after recording minuscule emissions reductions.
States are already spending their CRP dollars despite the fact that carbon reduction strategies (CRS), the plans they should be using to appropriately utilize CRP funding, are not due to the FHWA until November 15, 2023, nearly halfway through the infrastructure law’s funding timeline. These strategies can take up to 90 days to review and could still take rounds of adjustment before they are accepted by the FHWA. States without a reviewed CRS cannot adequately plan CRP spending, so there are no guarantees that the program will be able to meet its goal of reducing emissions.
A complimentary tool for transparency and accountability
The FHWA might be able to leverage a proposed regulation it rolled out for comment on July 15 to get the most out of the CRP. The proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measure would require states to measure the total amount of GHG emissions produced by transportation and reduce them to half of 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Because of these declining targets, the new rule might incentivize states to use their CRP money to reduce emissions. However, that depends on how closely states adhere to the emissions measure guidance.
So far, climate-unfriendly states have not been too keen on listening to the FHWA. Enforcement of the GHG emissions measure will take diligent administrative action, which is uncertain even in administrations friendly to climate action like the Biden administration. Congress could ensure the success of the CRP by holding states accountable for failing to meet GHG emissions measure targets.
The bottom line: FHWA must add some chutzpah to the CRP
In order to make this program consequential for reducing transportation emissions, the FHWA needs to make changes. We won’t be able to reach our nation’s carbon reduction goals if even the programs aimed at reducing emissions are making our emissions worse. To start, they must require CRP funds to be used solely for the purpose of carbon reduction until states have hit benchmarks similar to those in the GHG emissions measure.
After states hit the target level of carbon reduction (based on emission per capita and per economic unit), states should only flex funds into projects which will not counteract those reductions (e.g. transit and rail). Congress can also nudge the FHWA towards this by clarifying the intention of the program as only allowing states to flex money out if they are making real progress on transportation emissions.
The FHWA must also outline an adequate timeline for the completion of carbon reduction strategies, requiring states to demonstrate how they plan to use their funds and that they have reached the benchmark prior to flexing to other programs. Climate change is an ever-growing problem, and half measures will not help us reach our goals. The FHWA must provide more structure to this program, or else billions of dollars in climate funding could be spent in vain.
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.
In response to the proposed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne released this statement:
We are glad to see Congress is taking climate needs and inflation reduction seriously. We are particularly excited that they included $3 billion in Neighborhood Access and Equity grants to redesign arterial roadways, particularly those that impact communities of color. This is a valuable, needed investment to repair a longstanding barrier to accessing jobs and services especially for non-drivers, which will support local economic development and knit communities back together across overbuilt roadways.
Huge arterial roadways become a barrier and divide communities precisely because they are not safe. Their design prioritizes high-speed vehicle travel through the corridor over all other road users, including drivers trying to cross and anyone moving through the area outside of a car. The result is an ever-growing number of pedestrians, particularly pedestrians of color, being hit and killed on our roadways. Smart Growth America’s new Dangerous by Design report documents that 67 percent of pedestrian deaths occur on arterials, which make up 15 percent of roadways. By providing funds to redesign these roadways, these grants can help to connect the community, support local economic development, save people money on gas by allowing them to get out of their cars, close an obstacle to economic opportunity and, in the process, save lives.
The role street design plays in pedestrian deaths has been overlooked for far too long. These grants are an important step to boost local economies and improve the safety of our streets. We thank Congressional leaders for including the important program in the reconciliation.
In response to the USDOT’s newly proposed rule for states and municipalities to track and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne offered this statement:
The Biden administration took an important step today in holding states to account for their transportation emissions. This proposed rule will provide sunlight and accountability on how our tax dollars are being spent and the results of our investments, including the $643 billion approved for transportation in last year’s infrastructure law.
To create a more efficient, less polluting transportation system, we have to start by measuring the transportation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, and then set targets for reducing them. States have enormous flexibility in how they spend federal taxpayer dollars, but there is little accountability to push them to meet federal goals. Today’s action by the administration will be critical to shedding light on state emissions and arming advocates, decision-makers, and taxpayers with the information they need.
This is also an achievable task for states. 24 states (plus the District of Columbia) already measure emissions from transportation in some form.
This is a vital first step, but there is still more the administration can and should do. We urge the USDOT to be bold and consider state progress on these new emissions goals when awarding discretionary grant funding, particularly for projects related to emissions reduction like the Carbon Reduction Program.
State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) will now have the opportunity to set decreasing emissions targets, and they should not drag their feet in doing so. We stand ready to help them succeed.
Six months into 2022, a lot’s been accomplished to steer the infrastructure law to better outcomes, but there’s still a long way to go.
When the infrastructure law passed last November, amid scores of trade groups, states, and others who were satisfied merely with the massive increase in spending, our lukewarm response was guided by our three principles: prioritize repair, design for safety, and promote access to services and opportunity through multiple modes of travel. Year after year, state and federal governments have assured us that these priorities are also their priorities, all while doubling down on the status quo. While the infrastructure bill did add scores of exciting new programs and historic funding for transit, it failed to transform the existing way of investing in transportation.
Let us be clear: the current system can’t fix the current system. We can’t outbuild our repair needs, expand our way to shorter commutes, or speed our way to safety. To solve these issues, we must be committed to addressing their root causes, which means decision makers at all levels need to rethink the traditional approach to addressing transportation issues. Our efforts now are aimed at facilitating that process and measuring the administration’s progress on their stated goals.
This dialogue has only started, and given the flexibility in the infrastructure law, we have a long road ahead. We will continue to circulate our work with our partners and coalitions and learn from their perspectives and expertise.
It will take time, effort, and a wholly new approach to meet our nation’s safety, repair, and transportation needs, and the administration, states, and local governments will need to begin making progress immediately to meet their lofty goals. We’ll be here to celebrate their successes, offer advice, and call out their missteps. When the next infrastructure law is drafted, we’ll be even more prepared to demand better for the millions of Americans who are poorly served by our current transportation system.
Transit agencies across the United States have struggled with decreased ridership, safety hazards, and low morale as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet some have responded by changing their approach to better serve everyday riders, make transit free or more affordable, and rethink what the future of transit should look like to reduce emissions and provide access for those who need it most.
This post was written by Devin Willis, program associate at Smart Growth America. It is the fourth of a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here. Some of the agencies profiled in this piece were interviewed with support from the Kresge Foundation.
This series has explored how public transit is an essential part of mitigating climate change by reducing emissions. Connecting more people to their everyday destinations via public transit offers a way to cut back on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transportation emissions.
We’ve been writing this series against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has presented unprecedented challenges for transit agencies and the millions of riders they serve. Transit providers all over the country are struggling with revenue loss due to the massive ridership drop in 2020, service cuts, driver shortages and illness, vaccine skepticism, and low morale. Although the funds for transit in the 2021 infrastructure bill will help, those funds can’t help fund operations for most transit agencies or undo the damage caused by the pandemic. (The American Rescue Plan, passed during the pandemic, does specifically provide emergency operations support for transit agencies.)
This is a slight detour from our series about the potential of reducing emissions with more transit, but we wanted to profile a few transit agencies that shifted their approach during this historic pandemic to provide better access for their riders and rethink the future of transit in their communities—both of which are stepping stones to more significant improvements that can help reduce emissions.
Richmond, VA preserved ridership levels with fare-free transit and a past network redesign
Unlike many transit agencies nationwide, Richmond’s public transit only suffered a relatively modest drop in ridership, and has already recovered local bus ridership to pre-pandemic levels. This is likely due in part to a handful of bold actions on the part of the city government and the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC). GRTC CEO Julie Timm, hired just six months before the pandemic, attributes their success to three main steps taken:
1) The strength of the 2018 network redesign connecting essential workers to jobs; 2) the extensive COVID protective measures enacted early and throughout the pandemic to protect staff and riders; and 3) the ongoing commitment to Zero Fare operations to protect the health and financial stability of our riders. GRTC’s focus on connecting people to essential resources resulted in higher sustained ridership.
As Timm notes, before the pandemic in 2018, GRTC implemented a significant redesign of its bus routes to improve access and produce faster, more consistent service. Their redesign includes new route names and numbers (routes are now named after major roads that are well known to locals like Hull Street), increased bus frequency, and easier connections. This service redesign successfully produced an increase in ridership every month between June 2018 and February 2020, reaching a full 29 percent increase over that time period and providing a solid foundation to build upon during the difficulties of the pandemic.
The most notable change that GRTC made during the pandemic was the decision by the GRTC and Mayor Levar Stoney in March of 2020 to suspend all fare collection from bus riders. In Richmond, the majority of the bus service ridership and revenue comes from the often economically distressed households of essential and low-income riders. This shift to 100 percent free transit spared many families and workers from having to choose between their bus fare and other needs like food, medicine, and employment access.
While Richmond was not the only city to introduce fare-free policies during the pandemic, GRTC is among the more successful cities to do so, effectively preserving the city’s bus ridership and maintaining the zero fare policy longer term. And two years later, GRTC is continuing to offer fare-free transit while most other cities that did so have since returned to their previous fare policies. The GRTC was awarded $8 million in state grant funding from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to continue experimenting with the effects of zero fare policy over the next three years through June of 2025. The City of Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth University have agreed to match this funding in support of the zero fare policy and its positive effect on bus riders.
Atlanta, GA looks to restructure service to respond to changing needs
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Agency (MARTA) had approximately 110 bus routes with over four million passengers per month. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic MARTA, like many other US transit agencies, watched ridership crater. And in the intervening two years of the pandemic, they have struggled to bring their ridership back to pre-pandemic levels. At present, MARTA’s ridership is approximately 65 percent of pre-pandemic levels.
Similar to Richmond’s 2018 redesign but taking place during the pandemic, MARTA launched a major initiative to restructure bus service as a response to the pandemic and to better address the needs of residents. MARTA is currently leading a major online and in-person community engagement effort, soliciting feedback and ideas regarding new potential bus routes and service types. MARTA is posing key questions to its riders directly about the tradeoffs between service frequency and breadth of coverage directly: do riders want to see fewer routes with more reliable, frequent service between highly-trafficked areas (similar to the changes Richmond made, as well as Columbus and Houston) or more routes in more neighborhoods but less convenient service on those routes? Following the engagement, the proposed redesign concept will be released in the spring of 2022.
In addition to the bus network redesign, MARTA has also begun to experiment with mobile ticketing and fare collection to ensure the wellbeing of transit operators and riders. The agency added a mobile ticketing system in order to make transit use more contactless and limit the spread of coronavirus. MARTA hopes to make these changes permanent.
Pittsburgh, PA reroutes buses to better serve low-income riders
Pittsburgh’s Port Authority of Allegheny County lost 80 percent of its ridership during the coronavirus pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the Port Authority’s transit network was historically focused on connecting suburban commuters to downtown Pittsburgh from residential and suburban areas in the surrounding region. When the pandemic hit and many of those office jobs switched temporarily or permanently to remote work, this type of commuter ridership dried up almost completely.
The Port Authority also implemented changes in the fare system to encourage different types of riders to use the bus system. They recently introduced a modest fare proposal that would restructure the bus fare pass from a calendar-based weekly and monthly pass system to a more flexible 7- and 31-day pass system. This move is a good first step as it removes the bus pass from the commuter-centric five-day week and allows the bus system to better serve non-commuters such as persons traveling on the weekend or outside of rush hours. Locals have pushed for even more significant changes, including fare-free service or a similar policy. One proposal recommends that fares be limited for low-income passengers who are SNAP/EBT beneficiaries.
What’s next
The steps these agencies have taken are examples of what other agencies can do to increase ridership and safety in the pandemic. While the challenges faced by transit agencies during the COVID-19 crisis are very real and there are not easy solutions, the agencies profiled here were able to respond to the changing needs that they observed, focusing on providing access for those who need it most, potentially reducing emissions in the process by improving access and ridership. This type of responsive, nimble approach to transportation infrastructure will help make transit a viable alternative to driving and will help us reach our climate goals.
After the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and USDOT issued a report to Congress this week about Complete Streets, Beth Osborne, Vice President of Transportation at Smart Growth America—the home of the National Complete Streets Coalition—issued this statement:
“This simple but critical concept of Complete Streets—designing our streets so that everyone can use them safely—was created within our National Complete Streets Coalition almost 20 years ago. After years of working tirelessly to encourage towns, cities, counties, states and the federal government to adopt this approach, we are deeply encouraged to see the concept enshrined and institutionalized within official USDOT documents, including this report. FHWA has done an excellent job in clearly laying out and describing the actions that are needed throughout the entire federal transportation program to truly build safe streets and roads for all people, including getting better safety data, assessing safety in project development, and making safety the primary goal and Complete Streets the default design.
“The title of this report is also telling. There are certainly ‘Opportunities and Challenges’ when it comes to making our streets safer and more convenient. Now we need to turn those challenges into opportunities and opportunities into reality. Every day the status quo approach stands and transportation agencies are allowed to design, build, or maintain their streets only for cars is a day where we allow the historic levels of death on those roadways to continue. This report gives us a path forward—one that needs to be acted on in the immediate future.
“The National Complete Streets Coalition will continue our hands-on work with states and localities to advance Complete Streets policies and upend our country’s outdated paradigm for street design that has produced a historic increase in traffic injuries and fatalities. We look forward to working closely with FHWA to turn their excellent recommendations into action.”
The National Complete Streets Coalition and Transportation for America are programs of Smart Growth America.
Flickr/Creative Commons of a Metro Transit METRO C Line bus photo by Tony Webster. https://www.flickr.com/photos/diversey/49040491042.
Greater transit use is key for lowering emissions, and cities across America are reconsidering how they serve their residents with public transit—and the land uses that encourage better service and ridership. Several cities are laying the groundwork to make this happen—even outside of the “transit hotspots” one may expect.
This post was written by T4America policy intern Jackson Pierce. This post is the third in a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here.
In our first and second installments of this series, we showed how proper funding for transit operations and for increasing transit access are a one-two punch that makes transit more useful, lessening the need to drive and in turn lowering emissions. The historic influx of transit funding coming from the infrastructure bill provides an opportunity to better connect people to the jobs and services they need while reducing climate impacts. These improvements will also help address equity concerns by providing better quality service to more people who urgently need it. In our third installment, we highlight how Houston, Columbus, Austin, and Minnesota’s Twin Cities have made strides toward better service and smarter planning by focusing on providing better transit access to adapt today’s limited funding to existing infrastructure.
Houston and Columbus rescued their bus systems from low ridership by starting fresh
Houston—with a population ranked 4th in the nation by city proper, 5th by immediate metro area and 9th by expanded metro area—is infamous for its wide highways, sprawling cityscape, poor walking infrastructure in many areas, and nearly ubiquitous accommodation of the motor vehicle. Yet Houston has also become a public transit leader by significantly redesigning its bus service from the ground up in 2015 to focus on giving as many people as possible access to frequent, high quality transit, with help from transit consultants Jarrett Walker & Associates.
Houston is recognized as a leader for good reason. The city redrew its former bus network from scratch, allowing METRO (the city’s transit agency) to consolidate redundant routes into more frequent, centralized patterns that served population centers more often.
Houston’s frequent bus routes before and after the redesign.
On August 15th, 2015, a network of mostly infrequent bus routes converged downtown, which was not where most bus riders needed to go in the very decentralized metro area. On August 16th, these same buses ran on a brand-new network, a grid of 22 frequent routes that allowed access to multiple spread-out dense activity centers and neighborhoods. It was a transformation that required no new resources (outside of signage and wayfinding changes), just a smarter approach that recognized the city’s changing development patterns. (Read Smart Growth America’s longer 2015 profile of this story, just before the changes went into effect, which details the planning and work that went into it.)
There are a few things worth recognizing when discussing the replicability of Houston’s plan in other cities. Houston’s old network had clear redundancy in its routes. In other cities these routes may not exist, or have been cut in the past, so a comparable result to Houston’s “cost-neutral” solution may require greater investment overall or adding more resources elsewhere. Houston is also anchored by the Red Line, one of the most successful modern light rail projects in the country, and having that service as a network cornerstone bolstered METRO’s ridership on both modes.
While Houston is a popular example of a completely redesigned network, the idea has been successfully replicated at smaller scales.
By Ɱ – CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89607531
Columbus: Before Columbus redesigned its routes in 2017, for example, their bus map had been largely unchanged since 1974—even though the region had become one of the fastest-growing in the country. COTA (the Central Ohio Transit Authority) didn’t have the fleet size or duplicative routes that Houston’s METRO did, but managed to add seven frequent routes to their previous total of three, including two new crosstown routes that matched the city’s multi-centered development patterns.
Equity was a major concern during Columbus’ route redesign, leading Columbus to emphasize improving the frequency of their routes on weekends. Columbus also introduced their CMAX rapid bus line in 2018. While not “true” bus rapid transit—lacking dedicated lanes, off-board fare payment, and frequent headways on weekends—it still provides a solid anchor service for COTA’s other routes to feed into.
Frequent routes on COTA before and after the update.
Despite a nationwide decrease in transit ridership in the 2010s, Houston and Columbus both grew their ridership with their redesigns. Within a year of opening Houston saw a six percent growth in system ridership, and before the pandemic, Columbus’ ridership was up four percent overall since the 2017 redesign. This occurred because both cities updated their transit network to match changes in development patterns, improving transit access in the process.
In Austin, a strong baseline is paying off
CC photo of an Austin bus by I-ride capital metro on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/i-ride/5179709865/
Austin’s population has nearly doubled from 2000-2020 and its transportation systems are struggling to keep up, but the region’s major transit agency, Capital Metro, is working its way toward an accessible and intuitive system.
In 2010 Austin launched Capital Metrorail, a 32-mile commuter rail line that failed to draw significant riders, because it runs infrequently and misses much of the city’s density. To address that gap, in 2014, Capital Metro launched MetroRapid, a rapid bus system (similar to Columbus’ CMAX) featuring two lines making limited stops along some of the city’s main north-south corridors, hitting the neighborhoods that Metrorail missed, including the downtown core, south Austin, and the University of Texas. And in 2018, Capital Metro also embarked upon a full bus network redesign, which they dubbed “CapRemap.”
Austin’s current high frequency transit network.
CapRemap followed the principles of Houston and Columbus’ work, achieving similar results. A year after CapRemap’s release, the total bus system’s ridership had increased by about 4 percent and MetroRapid’s increase was about 6 percent—indicating that improving the grid of routes that increase accessibility across the city also strengthens the core of the system. Capital Metro also introduced new standards of mapping and signage that make Austin’s buses easier to use and navigate.
These improvements contributed to the success of a ballot initiative in November 2020 for the agency’s much more ambitious $7 billion ProjectConnect plan (click to see a map.) At the center of that plan are two light rail lines, which largely follow the current MetroRapid routes, paired with the introduction of new MetroRapid upgrades for some of the busiest existing bus routes. ProjectConnect is evidence that a well-planned baseline system will grow public support for more substantial infrastructure through incremental upgrades.
The Twin Cities are focused on serving corridors with the highest driving demand
Compared to the prior examples, Minnesota’s Twin Cities are taking a more incremental and perhaps unconventional approach to transit improvement and network strengthening. Like in Houston, many of the region’s main activity centers—like downtown Minneapolis, downtown St. Paul and suburban Bloomington—are connected by well-used local light rail services, which are reinforced by a grid of crosstown bus routes. Sixteen of these bus routes run every 15 minutes or better on corridors that are highly traveled but do not need the level of capacity that rail provides, and the region’s transit agency, Metro Transit, sees this network as a key to improving access throughout the region.
The A Line and C Line are currently operating as “backbone” routes of the bus network, with three more (F, G, and H) prioritized for near-term service frequency upgrades in the agency’s 2021 Network Next plan. This plan, set to be updated every five years, is centered around making data-driven, equitable decisions that improve speed and reliability.
Metro Transit is also working to better integrate local buses into its larger regional bus network, branded with colors, which operates partially on major freeways. The Orange Line, which just opened in December 2021, travels in dedicated high-occupancy toll lanes southward from downtown along Interstate 35W, one of the region’ busiest freeways. Unlike some freeway express routes in other cities, the Orange Line runs in both directions at 15-minute intervals (during weekdays) and serves substantial, accessible modern stations that bridge the gap between the speed of freeway travel and the pedestrian accessibility that serves successful transit. This approach also acknowledges the reality of the region’s multiple centers and serves the places that people are already going by car.
One of the I-35W rapid bus median stations on Metro Transit’s new Orange Line.Photo by Metro Transit.
Final construction of an I-35W rapid bus median station on Metro Transit’s new Orange Line.Photo by Metro Transit.
An early rendering of an I-35W rapid bus median station on Metro Transit’s new Orange Line. Photo by Metro Transit.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Metro Transit became one of a number of agencies to adjust its service to respond to shifting transit needs and provide better access: by lowering fares, providing near-term service to get students to school in the wake of bus driver shortages, and expanding a program to provide targeted transit passes to specific apartment buildings to better meet the needs of residents and actively reduce car-dependence.
The agency’s strategies stem from three principles, according to Metro Transit arterial bus rapid transit manager Katie Roth, who collaborated with T4A in this case study: 1) to meet the market for transit as it stands today, 2) improve the market for transit for the future, and 3) improve access to transit in communities that have historically suffered disinvestment. “This is how we’re going to emerge from the pandemic as a transit system,” she says.
Following traveler demand and creating a reliable all-day network will boost the resilience of neighborhoods around the region, providing a solid foundation to expand upon with their Network Next plan.
What other communities can learn about improving transit access
Making a real impact on our climate will require providing transit that offers a true alternative to driving. While there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer that works for every city and no US city that has fully solved this puzzle, the agencies profiled here have several things in common: they used data to understand service needs and were willing to rethink their route structure—sometimes dramatically—to provide better access for people most reliant on transit and keep up with changing development patterns, often seeing significant increases in ridership as a result.
Unfortunately, no amount of clever service redesign will make up for resources that simply aren’t there, so increasing transit funding must be part of the picture. And even a significant boost in funding won’t be enough to meaningfully improve transit access for all the people who need it in the more sprawling areas of our metro regions, so putting more people in the path of high quality transit by changing local development practices is a critical step on the path to a lower-emissions transportation system.
The Twin Cities region isn’t the only one that has updated its transit service to respond to evolving needs during the pandemic and beyond. In our final post in this series, we will be profiling agencies that have changed their approach during COVID to shift some focus away from traditional 9-to-5 commuters, make transit more affordable, and rethink what the future of transit should look like to reduce emissions and provide access for those who need it most.
On the release of the new Roadway Safety Strategy by the U.S. Department of Transportation, T4America directorBeth Osborne issued this statement:
“We’re very happy to see the administration specifically call out the importance of road design on speeds and driver behavior as a core area of focus, and acknowledge that risky behavior can be addressed through better roadway design. We’ve been fighting for years to get the media, the public, and especially transportation agencies to focus on the neglected role of street design in these deaths, and we’re encouraged to see an entire section on safer roadway designs and an entire section on safe speeds, including a call for updated guidance on setting safe speeds and the 85th percentile rule.
“We’re delighted that USDOT will consider revising the guidance for state safety targets, requiring them to demonstrate measurable progress instead of permitting them to just accept more deaths as an unavoidable fact of our transportation system. It’s not, and we can’t allow states and metro areas spending our tax dollars to keep throwing up their hands when it comes to reducing fatalities.
“Why is it so important that USDOT use their administrative powers to improve safety? Because in the infrastructure bill, Congress declined to make safety a core priority of and requirement for the huge formula programs used to build or repair roads, instead opting for a strategy that creates new, small safety programs that can be overwhelmed by the hundreds of billions spent on moving cars as fast as possible in almost all contexts. Unfortunately, this plan focuses on using the small safety and bike/ped programs to fund improvements in safety. USDOT needs to make safety the fundamental consideration of the hundreds of billions that states get in programs such as the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program and the National Highway Performance Program. If safety for our most vulnerable users is the top priority then it will be a priority of all the programs, not just niche programs.
“There are a couple areas of concern. The safety plan calls for improvements to the design guidelines used by all traffic engineers (the MUTCD) but states that bigger changes will come in the next edition—which could take years to see and may be managed by an administration that doesn’t share the same priorities. That is a very risky move that could put people at risk. Also while proposing to update the program that assesses the safety of new cars to include the safety of people inside and outside a car, they’ve failed to specify the impact of the growing size of the front ends of vehicles on the increasing deaths of people outside of them. Drivers should be able to see the road in front of them for the vehicle to be road worthy.
“Overall, we think this is a good strategy pointed in all the right directions, but we’re eager to get more specifics about what they plan to do in concrete terms. With a year of this administration already spent, we don’t need new plans and strategies that fail to bring about rapid change. We urge them to get started on implementation as quickly as possible and are eager to help.”
Increasing funding for transit operations is a vital first step to help more people drive less, but there’s an equally important next step: connecting more people by transit to more of the destinations they currently reach by car.
Bus riders wait at the Silver Spring Transit Center in Silver Spring, MD. Photo by BeyondDC
This post was written by Rayla Bellis, Director of Thriving Communities at Smart Growth America, and Abi Grimminger, T4America Communications Associate. This is the second of a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here.
In our first installment of this series on the importance of transit to reduce emissions, we focused on increasing spending on transit operations—more buses, more trains, running more often (in the 288 urbanized areas with available data.) We found that by increasing federal support for transit operations across these areas, we can make meaningful progress in reducing driving emissions. But while that’s a crucial step in the right direction to meet our climate goals, we also need to consider how to expand access to transit and help more people use transit to get where they need to go.
Pairing expanded transit service with greater access to transit
For a second phase of our analysis of how investing in transit can help meet our climate goals, we looked at what we could achieve by improving transit access—in this case meaning how well transit connects people from their homes to available jobs in their region within a reasonable travel time. Improving transit access goes beyond simply expanding transit service. While offering more routes or more frequent service can certainly improve transit access, it won’t necessarily do so if those routes aren’t designed to connect the places where people live as directly as possible to the places they need to go
In the 288 urbanized areas studied, we examined the annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates for all 88.5 million households included in the 2017 National Household Travel Survey. We analyzed what share of their regions’ jobs (within 45 minutes from their homes) they could reach with existing transit service using data from the EPA’s Smart Location Database. Unsurprisingly the households that are unable to reach any jobs by transit within that time frame traveled quite a bit by car—averaging 23,090 miles per year.
Households that could get to work using transit drove significantly less, and the improvement came with even modest levels of access to jobs via public transportation. Households that could reach just 10 percent of jobs in their metropolitan area by transit drove 19,040 miles per year (an 18 percent drop). When that access increased modestly up to 10-20 percent of jobs, households drove 17,710 miles per year on average (a 23 percent drop), and when they could reach over 20 percent of all metro-area jobs with transit, average driving in those households dropped to 16,380 miles (or 29 percent less than households with no transit access).
Even improving transit access to connect people to up to 20 percent of metropolitan area (MSA) jobs leads to significant drops in average miles driven per year, reducing emissions.
Based on those results, we estimate that if we could manage to give all 88.5 million households we studied access to at least 20 percent of their region’s jobs by transit by 2050, we could reduce annual vehicle miles traveled by these households by 23 percent, leading to a total reduction in VMT (including non-household trips like deliveries and ridesharing) in those urbanized areas of 16 percent in 2050 compared to projected VMT based on our current trend. This is 377 billion fewer miles driven annually. Given that transportation emissions are the main perpetrators of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., this would be a major step toward improving climate outcomes.
Raising the bar
Providing all households in the 288 urbanized areas we studied with access to at least 20 percent of their region’s jobs by 2050 will require more than simply increasing investment in transit or even just running more trains and buses because of the existing low-density suburban development in many of these regions, which has contributed heavily to VMT growth and emissions in these cities. It will take a real push to make transit-supportive land-use decisions and provide the right transit service to connect people to the destinations they need. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact, some urbanized areas are already providing a significant share of their residents with access to at least 20 percent of their regions’ jobs by transit today, raising the bar for communities across the country.
In cities like Champaign, IL, Bloomington, IL, Duluth, MN-WI, and Boulder, CO, more than 70 percent of households can currently reach more than 20 percent of metropolitan-area jobs using transit. Bringing all 288 urbanized areas we studied up to a level of access comparable to those regions by 2050 (in line with the current top 2 percent of cities in the graphic below) would result in an 11.9 percent reduction in VMT in 2050, compared to what is currently projected for that year. Though a slightly less ambitious target, bringing all 288 urbanized areas up to the level of access provided in the top 5 percent of cities would still have a sizable impact, resulting in a 9.5 percent reduction. That would significantly reduce both emissions and the amount of time Americans spend in their cars on average—a win for the environment and for commuters.
In cities with the best current transit access (those in the top 2 percent), about 70 percent of households can reach more than 20 percent of their jobs by transit.
Bringing all 288 urbanized areas to the level of access provided by the current top-performing regions could reduce annual VMT in 2050 by 11.9 percent compared to currently projected levels for that year.
If we brought all 288 urbanized areas up to a minimum level of transit access to jobs already achieved by the…
…we could achieve a reduction in annual VMT in 2050 of…
…meaning a cumulative VMT reduction over 30 years of…
Top 25% of urbanized areas
-3.7%
-2.0%
Top 10% of urbanized areas
-6.5%
-3.6%
Top 5% of urbanized areas
-9.5%
-5.2%
Top 2% of urbanized areas
-11.9%
-6.5%
Source: Estimated using data on household VMT from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey and data on transit accessibility from the EPA Smart Location Database.
It is important to note that the impacts of poor access to transit aren’t felt equally. People who most need an affordable alternative to car travel are often the same people who don’t have viable transit access. Black workers are four times more likely to take transit than white workers, yet transit access is roughly 24 percent worse in the quartile of urban areas with the most Black residents, compared with those with the fewest. Areas with high poverty rates get less frequent, reliable transit service than wealthy neighborhoods. If we want to face climate goals head-on, we also have to address these inequities in transit access.
But how?
Increasing access to jobs via transit will require an intentional policy and investment strategy, because it depends on several factors beyond just how much we spend on transit: how well transit serves different populations currently, development patterns in the region, and where jobs and services are clustered. And overall, to make the more ambitious scenarios possible, changes in local and metro-area land-use decisions need to go hand-in-hand with the increased transit investment.
Some cities would need to spend a great deal to significantly improve transit access in the more sprawling portions of their regions if development practices don’t change, which is all the more reason to change those development practices now. Yet scores of cities could likely make meaningful improvements to transit access with very little additional spending. For instance, some cities (like Columbus, OH and Houston, TX) have been able to expand transit access simply by reconsidering the way their routes are structured and reconfiguring their service from the ground up with a focus on improving access.
To address the pressing need to reduce emissions from transportation to meet ambitious climate goals, we’ll need to not only invest more money overall in running more buses and trains more often, but also consider how to expand that transit service into more places and serve more people—especially those who need it most. More on this in an accompanying report coming in the new year.
On January 8, 2022, transportation advocates, experts, and organizers working on transportation issues in the DC region and at the national level will come together for TransportationCamp DC, a day-long “unconference” about practice, ideas, and opportunity.
An unconference is an event where the attendees determine the sessions. In a normal year, everyone suggests topics by writing them on sticky notes and then posting them on a single large wall. Similar topics are grouped together in real time, and those topics become the sessions for the day.
This year TransportationCamp DC will come together virtually for the second year in a row. If you didn’t join us last year, you might be wondering, how does an unconference work when everyone is attending online?
Holding an unconference virtually is a little different than in-person, but it’s just as fun and dynamic. Here’s what you need to know about how to attend TransportationCamp DC:
1. TransportationCamp DC will take place on Zoom. TransportationCamp is always a chance to connect with new collaborators and explore challenging issues together. We’ll be together in one giant Zoom for a bit on January 8, but the bulk of the day will take place in scores of smaller Zoom breakout rooms.
2. We’ll focus on issues in the DC region as well as national policy and programs. Got thoughts about how DC is implementing Vision Zero, or WMATA service in the greater DMV region? Or do you want to discuss nationwide research or federal transportation programs? TransportationCamp DC will be a space for all of these conversations.
3. Anyone, anywhere can join. Part of this year’s program will focus on issues in the DC region, and part will focus on nationwide transportation issues. Since national conversations relate to every community, everyone is welcome to join this event no matter where you live.
4. Session proposals will open the week before the event. Starting on Monday January 3, people who are registered will be able to submit ideas for sessions. Session topics can be something you are an expert on, something you want to learn more about, or something you want to create with other people.
If you are thinking about proposing a session, consider who you might invite to co-lead with you. What content would you want to cover, who do you hope will join the conversation, and how will the format of the session be participatory? Mobility Lab’s essential guide to TransportationCamp has some more ideas for proposing a great session, and see below for one more way to brainstorm session ideas.
5. We’ll have a dedicated Slack workspace for all attendees. Our TransportationCamp Slack workspace will be a place to connect, talk, network, and collaborate with other attendees in the lead-up to the event. We’ll open this workspace in late December so you’ll have the chance to brainstorm session ideas with other Campers, and everyone who registers for TransportationCamp will have access.
We’re committed to making TransportationCamp DC an event for everyone. If there’s a way we can make it more accessible for you, please reach out to Abi Grimminger.
TransportationCamp DC 2022 will bring together people from the DC region and across the country to talk about transportation practice, ideas, and opportunity. Interested in becoming a sponsor of this year’s event? Contact Abi Grimminger to learn more about sponsorship.
The revised version of the Build Back Better Act preserves $40 billion in important additions that will advance racial equity, address climate change by lowering emissions, and foster community-oriented economic recovery. T4America is encouraged to see these inclusions, but they’ll be a drop in the bucket compared to the much larger infrastructure deal, which doubles down on our dangerous, disconnected, high-speed-vehicle-dominated status quo.
UPDATED 11/8/2021:The infrastructure deal (the IIJA) passed on its own on Friday night (Nov. 5), minus the budget reconciliation act (BBB) detailed below. Read our short statement here and see the updated sections noted below.
“We are encouraged that the revised Build Back Better Act maintains several important proposals to improve the infrastructure deal by reducing emissions and addressing climate change, improving access to transit service—especially for those who can benefit from it most—and advancing racial equity,” said T4America director Beth Osborne.
“We are encouraged to know that Congress is taking seriously the need to address climate change, equity, and economic recovery. But the $40 billion included here unfortunately won’t be enough to redeem the $645 billion-plus infrastructure bill that will continue to make many of those same problems worse. As we’ve said throughout the second half of this year, the administration has a difficult task ahead to advance their stated goals of repair, safety, climate, equity, and access to jobs and services through these small improvements, while spending historic amounts on unchanged programs that have historically made those issues worse.”
How did we get here? An explainer
The last year has been one of the most complex for those who care about transportation policy, and it’s easy to get lost with all the acronyms and jargon as bills have been introduced and replaced and merged together. Over the past year the House and Senate made respective attempts at writing new five-year transportation bills to replace this year’s expiring FAST Act, with wildly diverging results.
The House’s five-year INVEST Act “commits to a fix it first approach, prioritizing safety over speed, and connecting people to jobs and essential services—whether they drive or not,” as T4 Director Beth Osborne said in the summer when it passed. It made notable strides to fix past problems ($20 billion for tearing down divisive highways) while taking the vital step to update the underlying programs that are continuing to create those same problems.
The Senate took a different approach, ignoring the INVEST Act and crafting their five-year transportation policy as part of the larger infrastructure bill (the IIJA). Their bill doubled down on the status quo—more money for the same old things—with important but marginal attempts to account for equity, climate, repair, electric vehicle infrastructure, safety, and community connections. The Senate approved that infrastructure bill and sent it to the House for final consideration, leaving the House in the unenviable position of choosing between their INVEST Act or supporting the larger infrastructure bill—one of the president’s key priorities.
UPDATE 11/8/2021: After months of the debate about combining the above infrastructure deal with the budget reconciliation act detailed below (read on for details about that), Congress finally moved on the infrastructure deal alone and approved it on Friday, November 5. This means that everything detailed above has now passed through Congress: the $600+ billion infrastructure deal which also included a five-year reauthorization to replace the expiring FAST Act. Read our short statement about that deal here.
The Build Back Better Act and the modest but notable transportation improvements within it (detailed below) are still awaiting action from Congress. Some other updates have been made to the post below to reflect that only the Build Back Better Act is still up for consideration at this point.[End of update. -Ed]
During the fall, Congress also began considering President Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act through the mechanism known as budget reconciliation to advance funding for all sorts of programs, including transportation and the infrastructure bill. This gave the House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee an opening to make additive improvements to the lackluster infrastructure bill (IIJA) included in reconciliation that would focus on climate, equity, transit, and connecting communities. Here are three notable improvements we urged T&I to include, which were included in the initial version:
Affordable Housing Access Program – Provides $10 billion for competitive grants to support access to affordable housing and the enhancement of mobility for residents in disadvantaged communities or neighborhoods, in persistent poverty communities, or for low-income riders generally.
Community Climate Incentive Grants – Provides $4 billion towards addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, specifically $1 billion for state incentives and $3 billion in competitive grant funding for regional and local government entities to pursue carbon and GHG reduction projects.
Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants – Provides $4 billion for competitive grants towards improving affordable transportation access via removing transportation barriers, building community connections that promote active and affordable transportation, and community capacity building aimed at assessing community impacts and enhancing public involvement in the decision making process.
Though members of the House were ready to move on this budget reconciliation bill and the infrastructure bill in September, the deal stalled due to opposition in the Senate from Senators Manchin (D-WV) and Sinema (D-AZ), who objected to the reconciliation bill’s top line spending extremely late in the process.
Where are we now?
In late October, Congress presented a revised and pared-back $1.75 trillion Build Back Better Act. We are encouraged to see that the drafters maintained the above three provisions which will significantly contribute towards equity, climate change mitigation, and fostering community connections.
But the (now approved!) $645-plus billion infrastructure deal (the IIJA) is the elephant in the Build Back Better Act room, and its’ shortcomings dwarf these good and worthy $40 billion improvements. As we said in our statement upon the IIJA’s passage, “the transportation portion of the infrastructure bill spends a lot of money but fails to target it to the needs of the day: building strong economic centers, providing equitable access to opportunity, addressing catastrophic climate change, improving safety, or repairing infrastructure in poor condition.”
It will be critical to build upon the work laid out upon passage of both the IIJA and the Build Back Better Act to make the most of the US transportation program to advance repair, safety, climate, equity, and community connection priorities and hold Congress and the administration accountable to deliver on what they are promising.
The current trend of more driving will make it harder for us to reach our emissions goals. Making public transit a more convenient and reliable option so people can access the things they need while taking shorter or fewer car trips is one way to reverse the trend of more driving.
This post was written by Rayla Bellis, Director of Thriving Communities at Smart Growth America, and Abi Grimminger, T4America Communications Associate. It’s the first of a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here.
Transportation accounts for the largest share of emissions in the US, and cars and trucks are responsible for nearly all of it. To fully decarbonize transportation by 2050, we need to transition to electric vehicles (EVs). But that transition is still decades away, and in the meantime the cumulative impacts of more driving and more emissions will make it harder for us to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We cannot afford to wait until the 2040s to start bending the curve on transportation emissions: we need to take real action now. And we won’t get there if we continue to do what we’ve been doing: driving more and more (measured as vehicle miles traveled or VMT).
We need to give people better options for getting around without needing a car. That means public transit, and a lot more of it. Public transit isn’t a reliable option for most Americans. While about 80 percent of people in the US live within areas classified as “urban” (which includes the suburbs of urban centers), less than 10 percent of Americans live within walking distance of reliable, high quality transit that comes every 15 minutes. And 45 percent of Americans have no access to transit at all.
Yet the federal government gives transit just 20 percent of surface transportation funding, and the rest goes to highways (which often funds highway expansions that make public transit even harder to use). Transit agencies can use this funding to repair and maintain their systems and to build out new services—but they can’t use it to help cover the cost of operating their systems, which accounts for two-thirds of a transit agency’s total expenses. This has put an enormous strain on agencies’ budgets, particularly as they continue to suffer from reduced fare revenue as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
We can afford to do better
In partnership with Third Way, Transportation for America recently analyzed 288 of the largest urbanized areas in the U.S. to help us understand just how much we would need to increase transit operating funding in those regions to enable residents to drive less. 60 percent of all driving happens in these 288 urbanized areas. While the scale of CO2 reduction we need isn’t something transit—or EVs, or any other single strategy—can fulfill alone, it turns out we can make real headway with an achievable increase in transit spending.
While more than two-thirds of the urbanized areas analyzed currently spend less than $100 per person on transit operations, there’s a correlation between more transit operations funding and lower amounts of driving in these metro areas. Our analysis found less driving per capita in the areas that spend more on transit operations per person (keep an eye out for a full report soon with more detail on our methodology and analysis results). That means that if we increase operating spending per person across those urbanized areas and continue to scale that spending up over time, we can expect to see meaningful reductions in driving.
We estimate that if we doubled transit spending in all of those urbanized areas by 2050, VMT in those regions will be 6.1 percent below its current growth trajectory. If we triple our investment in transit operations, VMT would be 10.7 percent lower. That’s less time spent commuting, less time in traffic, and less emissions warming our planet.
In fact, doubling or tripling transit spending would be roughly equivalent to taking every single gas-powered car off the road for about an entire day every two months for the next 30 years. If we fail to reach our goals of 100% electric vehicles by 2050, it would be closer to a day every single month with no emissions whatsoever from gas-powered vehicles.
VMT reduction impacts of increased transit spending
The 288 urbanized areas we analyzed spent $48 billion on transit operations in 2019.
By 2050, if we ↧ ↧
By 2050, we would increase annual transit spending to...
And see VMT reduction across those urbanized areas in 2050 of...
...double transit operating spending in each urbanized area
$94 billion
-6.1%
(143 billion fewer miles per year than projected)
...triple transit operating spending in each urbanized area
$120 billion
-10.7%
(250 billion fewer miles per year than projected)
Estimated using 2019 transit operating spending from the National Transit Database and 2019 per capita VMT from the Federal Highway Administration. Scenarios doubling or tripling transit spending were capped at a maximum of $800 per person in each urbanized area.
While we won’t be able to double or triple transit operating spending overnight, these are investments we can—and need to—start making now. Unfortunately, the federal government is continuing to turn a blind eye to the need for better transit funding if we ever want to reach our climate goals. Though the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act increased federal spending on transit, this legislation provides an historic amount of money for highways and prioritizes car travel. That will encourage driving-oriented road projects and development decisions that make our investments in transit less effective and the service we do have more difficult to access. A transit stop that’s dangerous or difficult to reach is a transit stop that will be underutilized, only being used by those people willing to endure the difficulty or risk. A broad coalition of stakeholders is urging $10 billion more for transit in the budget reconciliation package, which can be used to cover operating costs. Though transit will ultimately need much more than this to enable us to meet our climate goals, $10 billion is an important step in the right direction.
There’s more to this story
It’s not just about pumping more money into transit—how we provide transit service matters. In order to reduce the amount we drive, we’ll need to ensure that transit effectively connects people to the places they need to go. We’ll be doing a series of blog posts analyzing what it would take to build a national transit system that helps get us to our climate goals.
The SHIFT Calculator provides transparency about new traffic created by highway widening and expansion so transportation agencies can make smarter, more sustainable transportation investments.
A new tool released today provides anyone with the ability to estimate the increased traffic and pollution that will result from proposed highway expansions.
Over the past few decades, taxpayer dollars have funded billions of dollars in highway expansions intended to alleviate road congestion, but it usually does not take long for the traffic to return. This endless loop, known as “induced demand,” fails to address congestion while leading to more cars on the road and more pollution from the transportation sector, which is the nation’s largest source of emissions.
Using the State Highway Induced Frequency of Travel (SHIFT) Calculator developed by RMI, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and Transportation for America, anyone can now project the increases in driving that would result from highway expansions. The Calculator provides transparency and accountability for transportation projects that often do not deliver on promised benefits and instead make traffic and pollution worse. This new tool will enable transportation agencies to account for the principle of induced demand in the planning and implementation of highway projects.
“Road expansion projects have failed to deliver the promised benefits. In fact, the evidence shows that they actually make traffic and pollution worse,” said Ben Holland, manager in RMI’s Urban Transformation Program. “To achieve US climate goals, we must reduce the amount that the average person drives by 20%. This tool shines a light on the impacts of highway expansion and shows how these projects often move us away from our goals.”
The SHIFT Calculator was based on RMI’s Colorado Induced Travel Calculator, which advocates used to show that proposed and in-progress road expansions would increase vehicle miles traveled by up to 3% by 2030, at a time that the state is aiming to reduce those roadway miles by 10%.
“This easy-to-use tool will help advocates make their case to city and state transportation departments,” said Carter Rubin, a transportation strategist at NRDC. “So many of us have seen firsthand how quickly traffic returns when extra highway lanes open up, and this calculator provides the numbers to back up that experience. If cities and states really want to get residents out of traffic and cut down on smog, they should make it easier and faster for people to ride public transit, bike and walk.”
“For 90 years, we have known that building new lanes creates new vehicle trips that fill those lanes, and for 90 years, we have mostly ignored this fundamental law while repeating the same mistakes at great cost,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “We must stop making empty promises about congestion reduction that never materialize. Having the ability to estimate added travel caused by expansions can finally equip decision makers and the public with the data to make the case for something more effective at connecting people to jobs and opportunity.”
###
About RMI
RMI is an independent nonprofit founded in 1982 that transforms global energy systems through market-driven solutions to align with a 1.5°C future and secure a clean, prosperous, zero-carbon future for all. We work in the world’s most critical geographies and engage businesses, policymakers, communities, and NGOs to identify and scale energy system interventions that will cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 50 percent by 2030. RMI has offices in Basalt and Boulder, Colorado; New York City; Oakland, California; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing. More information on RMI can be found at www.rmi.org or follow us on Twitter @RockyMtnInst.
About NRDC
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.
About Transportation for America
Transportation for America, a program of Smart Growth America, is an advocacy organization made up of local, regional and state leaders who envision a transportation system that safely, affordably and conveniently connects people of all means and ability to jobs, services, and opportunity through multiple modes of travel. Learn more at t4america.org and follow us on Twitter @T4America.
About Transportation for America 
