Transportation for America, Author at Transportation For America

About Transportation for America

For general inquiries about the campaign, email info [at] t4america [dot] org.

A policy proposal to undo the damage of “urban renewal”

Today, Transportation for America and Third Way released a policy proposal to undo the damage of “urban renewal” projects that have displaced more than a million Americans since construction of the Interstate Highway System and that continue to harm communities of color today. These four federal policy recommendations can be included in a COVID-19 stimulus bill or infrastructure package, or considered as stand-alone legislation.

So-called “urban renewal” initiatives of the 1950s and 1960s ostensibly provided money to cities across the country to revitalize neighborhoods. But in practice, these new interstates razed housing and ripped through neighborhoods, displacing more than a million Americans during the first two decades of the federal interstate system.¹ These projects deliberately targeted communities of color and particularly Black neighborhoods, wreaking havoc on their health and local environments for decades.

The American public has made it very clear that they want the federal government to prioritize revitalizing our nation’s infrastructure. Both parties in Congress and the incoming Biden Administration ostensibly agree on this need. Absent a new approach, however, even re-investment risks perpetuating the inequitable highway construction practices of the past while locking in air, water, and climate pollution that are a drag on our health and the economy.

To undo the far-reaching damage of “urban renewal” projects, Third Way and Transportation for America recommend a suite of policies, including the creation of a new competitive grant program, to reconnect communities, repair the damage, and invest for sustainable and equitable growth. This includes:

Creating a competitive grant program to redesign or deconstruct the outdated infrastructure that has hindered the growth of low-income and minority communities;
Establishing land trusts to help generate wealth for the communities that already reside in these neighborhoods; and
Updating federal transportation modeling tools so that decision-makers and communities can see how these infrastructure projects really impact traffic patterns today;
Requiring federal agencies to issue guidance on identifying communities with infrastructure barriers, measuring the degree of harm to that community, and providing incentives and prioritizing resources to address those disparities.

This critical investment could feature in a COVID-19 stimulus bill or separate infrastructure package, or as stand-alone legislation.

Background

After Congress enacted the 1956 Highway Act, cities and states used primarily federal funding to build highways through the middle of cities. White families used these interstates to move to the suburbs. City planners worried that their city centers would empty out if the suburbs were disconnected from downtown, so they intentionally ran new highways downtown to ensure suburban residents would regularly drive into town. But city developers also often deliberately chose highway routes in order to displace, disrupt, or segregate neighborhoods of color.²

The displacement has caused profound and generational impacts on these communities and has created huge physical divides in areas that would otherwise be among the most valuable for the city, especially at a time when cities’ downtowns are revitalizing. These highways destroyed the wealth built up through property by the families whose homes cities took through eminent domain or that developers destroyed. Now, residents cannot enjoy the current benefits of a downtown resurgence because of the infrastructure next to them.³

The urban highways cutting through these communities also brought additional, longer car trips; more congestion on the roads; and more pollution. The air quality issues associated with vehicle emissions disproportionately impact communities of color, with these communities facing higher exposure to harmful pollutants⁴and greater risk of asthma and other health issues⁵ than predominantly white communities. These highways, and the sprawl they enabled, have also harmed the climate by increasing Americans’ reliance on motor vehicles: Transportation is now our largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, most of which come from cars and trucks.⁶

Increasingly, state and local governments are reaching an inflection point. Many of these highways are aged half a century or older and have either fallen into disrepair or are no longer needed because of changing traffic patterns. Rather than simply replace or expand these highways, cities and states should reconsider whether these highways are necessary routes or unnecessary barriers that continue to cut off neighborhoods of color from opportunity.

The idea of legislating to undo the damage of past “urban renewal” policies isn’t new: under President Barack Obama, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx convened stakeholder meetings on how to make transportation more affordable, accessible, and equitable.⁷ President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration—and House and Senate infrastructure leaders’ commitment to improving America’s roads and bridges—could give new currency to this work.

Policy recommendations

Authorize $10 billion for a new Restoring America’s Neighborhoods Grant program to correct the economic, environmental, and social damage of “Urban Renewal” highway projects that destroyed the core of many small, medium, and large US cities and displaced communities of color.

Half of this funding would be awarded to state DOTs to redesign or deconstruct highways or other transportation infrastructure that was built through communities of color (“obstructive highways”). The other half would fund the creation of land trusts in those neighborhoods to ensure the land freed up from the removal of obstructive highways will generate wealth for the people who already live there.

Redesign or deconstruction of obstructive highways

The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) should make grants available to state DOTs in partnership with the affected cities. Eligible projects for grants under this program would be for removal or repurposing of obstructive highways, including bringing the highway to grade, reconstructing the local roadway network, turning the highway into a boulevard, etc. There should also be a planning set-aside for assessing, designing, permitting and engineering alternatives for specific obstructive highways as well as setting up a land trust, including forming the trust and providing it authority to operate in the area. This work could include measurements of the air and water pollution impacts of retaining or repairing existing disruptive highways versus removing or replacing this infrastructure.

A $5 billion investment could fund a couple of large projects and 6-10 smaller ones, depending on the size of the obstructive infrastructure. These grants will be sufficient to fully fund a project, to ensure these projects can move forward quickly. USDOT should give preference to applicants with a demonstrated capacity—including any locally matched funding—to develop and manage the project; those that have an existing partnership with the communities impacted; and those whose projects demonstrate equitable economic development, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, supportive land uses, new transit service, or explicit protection of housing affordability.

To maximize the impact of these investments for economic stimulus, USDOT should reward the first grants no later than nine months after the program is enacted and should strongly prioritize funding to projects that can be completed within 5 years. USDOT should also require projects receiving grant funding to adhere to the labor provisions that usually come attached to federal-aid highway funding, such as Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards and Buy America domestic content provisions.

Land trusts

The interstates that the Highway Act supported consistently destroyed wealth in the communities they traversed and divided, particularly in communities of color. Therefore, any projects that begin to reverse this damage should rebuild that wealth. Highway update projects that remove a barrier, create new greenspace, or connect the community to commercial centers will also increase land values. To ensure that neighborhoods around the highway receive the benefits of its removal or modification, the project sponsor for any award under this program should be required to establish a land trust or land bank that would receive initial ownership of any property that becomes developable through activities supported by a grant under this program. The land trust would help locals buy the property, preserve and build affordable housing, support the opening of locally-owned small businesses, and preserve greenspace and parks.

A $5 billion investment could support 1-2 dozen land trusts for five years. The sale of property and development of land recovered should both fund the land trust beyond its first five years and help existing homeowners pay the increase in property taxes once their property values appreciate due to gentrification. The program should also protect renters, as well as homeowners who have owned affected buildings for generations but who cannot show title. It must ensure that housing affordability remains protected before, during, and after development. The USDOT should work directly with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish the land trust portion of this program, determine awards and manage the grants.

Policy considerations

This paper only introduces the Restoring America’s Neighborhoods Grant program and its key principles; it’s not meant to spell out every detail or present legislative text. However, policymakers and others interested in advancing this program will need to think through some additional policy considerations regarding the land trust component of the program, such as:

Whether to include a requirement that the land trust act with a fiduciary duty to the local community;
Whether to require that a grantee already have a land trust, or similar non-profit, already established and operating in the area; and
Whether to funnel this money through an existing program like the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in order to get funding awarded quickly.

Forecasting tools

Transportation agencies do not yet have the necessary tools to understand the impacts of various highway project alternatives on traffic, urban development, and climate change. Today’s traffic forecasting tools are not built to consider individual trips that shift to other corridors; occur at a different time of day; involve a different mode of transportation; or disappear due to telecommuting or a shifted trip. Our proposal includes $25 million for USDOT to develop twenty-first century tools capable of accounting for these shifts in traffic in order to help plan and to preserve affordability in travel.

Study on obstructive infrastructure

Too many communities suffer the burden of infrastructure barriers without the political or economic power to oppose harmful projects and secure beneficial investments. Meanwhile, the federal government spends billions in formula and discretionary funds, often perpetuating the cycle of harm to communities. To break this cycle, and better target investments, our proposal will require USDOT to conduct a broader study, with the support of state DOTs and impacted cities, identifying the communities with infrastructure that creates barriers to mobility (such as highways that slice through a community) and measuring the degree of harm to that community. This study will culminate in the creation of a national map of communities torn apart by infrastructure, and will help prioritize resources for the communities most badly harmed by obstructive highways in the future.

Examples of successful reversals

Many cities across the country have already removed urban freeways and other infrastructure that has hindered the growth and vitality of their communities. These successes can serve as a model for a federal program.

In the 1970s, Portland became the first major city to remove an existing highway when it tore out Harbor Drive and replaced it with a public park that has served as an anchor for new development. Milwaukee tore down the Park East Freeway in the early 2000s, attracting over $880 million in private investment to the 24-acre corridor. In Greenville, South Carolina, the city replaced a four-lane highway bridge with a pedestrian bridge and public park, a project that revitalized its West End and spurred over $100 million in private investment in its first two years.

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

There are also examples of communities establishing land banks to bring economic value to low-income communities and communities of color and help underserved families stay in their homes. Launched in 2003, Denver’s Urban Land Conservancy preserves and develops permanently affordable real estate to ensure underserved communities are not displaced by rising property values. Through the conservancy and other partners, the Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund is working to secure over 1,000 affordable housing units on transit corridors. In Minneapolis, the Twin Cities Community Land Bank has acquired at least 1,000 vacant or distressed properties since 2009, keeping these properties affordable and helping low-income families stay in their homes.

Positive impacts

The United States has an opportunity to replicate these success stories by providing cities with the proper resources and tools to tackle these projects. Through a $10 billion program, dozens of cities could plan and repurpose their disruptive highways and reclaim significant acreage for tax-paying, job-creating redevelopment.

This grant program would improve regional air quality and health outcomes in disadvantaged communities by reducing exposure to smog. It would reconnect impacted neighborhoods, create new open spaces and allow people to take shorter trips to reach daily necessities like the grocery store or community center. It would increase access to less polluting modes of travel, like walking and biking. It would reduce climate pollution in areas that research already indicates will suffer a greater burden from the impacts of climate change. Most importantly, it would be a step toward rectifying the mistakes of past federal policy and moving us forward in a brighter direction.

Endnotes

Pyke, Alan, “Top infrastructure official explains how America used highways to destroy black neighborhoods.” Think Progress, 31 Mar. 2016, https://archive.thinkprogress.org/top-infrastructure-official-explains-how-america-used-highways-to-destroy-black-neighborhoods-96c1460d1962/.
Kruse, Kevin M, “What does a traffic jam in Atlanta have to do with segregation? Quite a lot.” New York Times Magazine, 14 Aug. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/traffic-atlanta-segregation.html.
Semuels, Alana, “The role of highways in American poverty.” The Atlantic, 18 Mar. 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/role-of-highways-in-american-poverty/474282/.
De Moura, Maria Cecilia Pinto and David Reichmuth, “Inequitable exposure to air pollution from vehicles in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.” Union of Concerned Scientists, 21 Jun. 2019, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/inequitable-exposure-air-pollution-vehicles.
“Disparities in the impact of air pollution.” American Lung Association, 20 Apr. 2020, https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/disparities.
“Fast facts on transportation greenhouse gas emissions.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed 4 Dec. 2020, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
Beyond Traffic 2045, U.S. Department of Transportation, 9 Jan. 2017, page 206, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/BeyondTraffic_tagged_508_final.pdf.

Cities’ priorities must be the heart of any universal curb standard. These 5 principles pave the way.

Cities and towns face a massive hurdle to managing their curb space: the lack of a uniform way to define the curb and its users. Without a universal curb standard, it’s difficult for local governments to coordinate with each other and private entities and assess the effectiveness of their curbside management policies. Participants in our Smart Cities Collaborative joined together to develop five principles that should inform any universal curbside language and standards.

Click to download the PDF

Demands on the curb have skyrocketed in the last decade, while the amount of curb space has largely remained the same. Due to increased vehicle congestion, commerce delivery, the increase in parklets and outdoor dining, and access to modes like shared bikes and scooters and app-based ride-hailing, the curb has become a scarce and sought-after resource.

Curbs are no longer simply for parking. They’re key to the movement of goods and people, and now even our COVID-19 response. The pandemic has only crystallized the importance of the curb, as an exponential amount of curb space has been needed for safe recreation, retail, restaurants, and more.

Yet curbs are massively underutilized by cities and towns. Although many local governments have created or are in the process of creating strategies to manage curb space, there is no uniform way that local governments define the curb and its users. This makes it difficult for local governments to assess the effectiveness of their curbside management policies—to truly utilize curb space for the public good—because there isn’t a uniform way to evaluate data or share lessons learned with other municipalities.

That’s why participants in our Smart Cities Collaborative joined together to create five principles that should inform the development of any universal curbside language and set of standards. These five principles for a national standard will ensure that the public interest is embedded within the standard and language itself, giving cities and towns a shared definition of the curb and its users while empowering them to customize curbside management to best serve the unique needs of their residents.

Here’s a quick summary of our five principles for a universal curbside language and standards (UCLS). You can read much more in-depth on these principles and the need for a UCLS created by the public sector in our new report, “Principles for Universal Curbside Language & Standards.”

PRINCIPLE 1 | LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES SET THE POLICY

A successful UCLS will be one that is shaped by the public agencies who manage the curb.

Curbs within the public right-of-way are funded and regulated entirely with public funding and should serve community needs. For that reason alone, local public agencies—who are in charge of the curb—are best suited to lead this effort.

While input and data from private companies—especially freight operators—is important, creating a language and standards that caters primarily to the needs of any one stakeholder would be a disservice to all users, especially the most vulnerable.

PRINCIPLE 2 | EQUITABLE

The design of a UCLS is an opportunity to assist local governments in their effort to shift and reallocate curb space from being a free resource that serves few (primarily through car parking) to a resource that serves everyone—especially those who deserve better and more affordable access to curbs. This includes people with disabilities, people using transit; those walking, biking, or rolling; low-income people; Black, Indigenous, and people of color; and those not connected to the digital network.

Equity must be embedded within any UCLS so that local governments can prioritize their most vulnerable right-of-way users and disadvantaged community members. You can check out our recommendations for incorporating equity into a UCLS in our full report.

PRINCIPLE 3 | OPEN & PUBLICLY OWNED DATA

Any UCLS needs to be developed with an open data approach where public agencies own the data and data is collected and shared in a secure and transparent manner that protects personally identifiable information. Open data provides transparency and ensures data can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by anyone. Public agencies—or non-profits or academic institutions—need to be the stewards of any and all curbside data.

You can read the metrics we recommend a UCLS track in our full report.

PRINCIPLE 4 | EASILY TRANSFERABLE

To be truly universal, the language and standards must be easily accessible, understandable, and transferable to communities of all sizes, land uses and street typologies, and densities. A scalable and customizable UCLS based on a jurisdiction’s resources, tools, and capabilities ensures mass buy-in, giving local governments the ability to share lessons learned from curbside management in the same language.

PRINCIPLE 5 | CLEARLY COMMUNICATED

There was a considerable shift in how the curb has been used in the last decade, and in the last two years in particular due to rapid changes like the growth in e-commerce. This presents a unique opportunity for local governments, as the stewards of the curb, to rethink how to internally and externally communicate the value and importance of the curb and the benefit of a UCLS.

Internal and external curb stakeholders must understand—through a UCLS—the changing nature and value of the curb, as well as the short and long-term benefits of more proactive curbside management.

Final thoughts: it’s critical that universal curbside language and standards are created by the public sector, for the public

The curb is public space and a public asset, and as such it should be utilized to the greatest benefit of the public. It is the responsibility of local governments to prioritize who can use the limited amount of curb space, for what and when. Because of the many demands on the curb, without regulating and prioritizing access, our curbs cannot reflect or respond to the rapidly changing needs of the city and its users. And without applying an equity lens to prioritization of curbspace, certain users (such as people who do not own, cannot afford, or are unable to drive cars) will continue to be left behind as they do not benefit from “free” parking.

That’s why it’s critical that the public sector informs the creation of any universal language and standards. We hope that these principles can help shape any and every UCLS to come.

How the Biden administration can make immediate strides on climate and racial equity

The spread of COVID-19 has sent the United States plummeting into an unprecedented national crisis, but it has also illuminated the path forward. Transportation for America teamed up with our sister organizations at Smart Growth America to identify immediate executive actions and long-term policy changes that the incoming Biden administration can implement to eliminate structural inequities and address catastrophic global climate change.

EDIT, December 2020: We updated the recommendations! Check out the full set of recommendations here and read our summary below.

Earlier this month, Transportation for America teamed up with our partners at Smart Growth America to send recommendations to the Biden transition team on executive actions and legislation. Read the full memo here, updated December 2020.

With years of federal advocacy and public service under our belts, all of us here can say this for certain: simply pumping more money into existing federal programs won’t help the United States recover from the COVID-19 crisis. In fact, taking that approach will just make our economy more unequal, lead to more pollution from transportation, and result in more expensive housing that still isn’t getting built where it’s most helpful. Money alone cannot rectify the structural inequities we are facing.

To truly unlock our economic potential in a fiscally responsible way, tackle climate change and promote racial equity—the three goals of our recommendations—we need a new playbook. We must reform and better utilize the vast quantities of direct spending, tax credits, loan programs, formula funds, and financing that already exist. And only through a holistic approach that connects transportation, housing, and infrastructure policy can we provide Americans with freedom of transportation choice, access to affordable housing, and healthy, resilient communities.

Our recommendations to the transition team are best summed up with two simple messages. One, do not overlook how housing, land use, and transportation are interrelated in determining household costs, access to opportunity, wealth accumulation, and how much emissions we produce. And secondly, climate change and equity must be addressed together—the best strategies to improve the built environment to address one challenge also address the other.

Smart growth is the affordable, equitable, and sustainable path to recovery and prosperity. Now is the time for change enabling us to build back better, and we are glad for the opportunity to provide these recommendations to the incoming presidential administration. Read the full list of recommendations.

Here are some highlights from Transportation for America’s recommendations for immediate executive actions—most of which stem from our three principles for transportation policy.

Reduce emissions from transportation by re-establishing the greenhouse gas (GHG) performance measure for transportation that the Trump administration repealed, with annual state ratings.
Require federal agencies to issue guidance on identifying communities with infrastructure that creates barriers to mobility (such as highways that slice through a community), measuring the degree of harm to that community, and providing incentives and prioritizing resources to address those disparities by removing infrastructure barriers or creating new connectivity.
Require the Federal Highway Administration to update the Highway Capacity Manual to improve standards for pedestrians and cyclists which are based on accurate measures of safety and the perception of safety, including the level of traffic stress and crossing delays as opposed to volume and capacity.
Help transportation agencies measure access to jobs and essential services by directing research funds to create a national Geographic Information System (GIS)-based resource that allows transportation agencies to measure current levels of access to jobs and services by all modes of travel and assess the impact of planned projects.
The Department of Transportation should issue guidance clarifying the appropriate use of the common transportation design standard known as level of service (LOS), taking into account the impacts on induced demand, climate change, equity, and health outcomes.
Make a statement of support for the existing national network of state-supported and long distance passenger rail routes routes as essential connections for people in smaller and rural communities.

Which transportation ballot initiatives passed last week?

Last week’s election saw significant support for transit. While some of the larger local transportation ballot initiatives failed, voters approved the overwhelming majority of transit funding measures—several by a large margin. Here’s a rundown on how transportation ballot initiatives fared from Austin, TX to Wheeling, WV, and every place in between, updating our earlier blog.

The Mountain Line bus service in Missoula, MT. Photo courtesy of Mountain Line.

It wasn’t just the next president of the United States or the balance of power in Congress on the ballot last week: voters across the country decided on the future of transportation in their hometowns. From forward-looking proposals for transit expansion and renewals of existing transportation funding, here’s what passed and what failed on this extraordinary, pandemic Election Day. In short, it was a pretty great day for public transit funding.

(Before diving in, don’t miss our summary of how transportation ballot initiatives fared during the spring and summer primary elections. While some regions and states opted to delay or cancel ballot measures due to COVID uncertainties, a number of initiatives moved forward in the primaries, and the vast majority passed.)

One win, two losses: three big transit measures

PASSED (58%-42%): Voters in Austin, TX passed the first phase of Project Connect, a package of transit investments totalling $10 billion. This initial phase includes increasing property taxes to raise $3.85 billion and leverage federal funds for a total of $7.1 billion. As our colleague Rayla Bellis wrote a few weeks ago, the proposal includes new light rail lines, a tunnel for light rail in the downtown area, expanded bus routes, a transition to electric buses, and bus rapid transit service. It also includes $300 million for transit supportive investments, anti-displacement efforts and affordable housing along the proposed lines.

This win comes in the wake of Austin’s history of unsuccessful initiatives to fund light rail expansion. Project Connect was unanimously approved by the Austin City Council yet faced some opposition, both in response to the cost and relative permanence of new light rail lines compared to improved bus service.

FAILED (43%-57%): Voters rejected Portland, OR’s Let’s Get Moving measure (Measure 26-218), which would have levied a 0.75 percent payroll tax on businesses with more than 25 employees. The business community largely withdrew support for the measure, with a number of larger businesses contributing to a successful opposition campaign.

With the $4.2 billion generated by the payroll tax and an additional $2.84 billion in matching funds, the measure would have funded dozens of light rail and bus transit expansion and safety projects for people walking and biking along identified priority corridors. It also included funds for anti-displacement work in predominantly Black and brown communities along the corridors.

FAILED: In suburban Gwinnett County, GA in the Atlanta region, residents rejected a proposed 30-year, 1 percent sales tax for transit expansion in the county that would raise a total of $12 billion for bus and rail expansion. This rejection—failing by only a margin of approximately one thousand “no” votes, although a recount might be possible—comes less than two years after a failed measure to fund transit expansion for both Gwinnett County bus and MARTA rail that would also have integrated Gwinnett County transit into the MARTA regional transit system—a change that county voters have rejected several times over the past few decades.

Other local and state initiatives of interest

PASSED (82%-18%): Voters in Seattle, WA decided to renew funding for the Seattle Transportation Benefit District via a six-year 0.1 percent sales tax and a car-tab fee that expires this year. The plan will reduce total service below existing levels, but it will focus the remaining service more heavily in communities of color. The measure would generate $20 to $30 million annually over six years.

PASSED (61%-39%): Voters in three small municipalities in Gratiot County, MI passed a 1-mill levy (one dollar per $1,000 dollars of assessed value) to join their region’s Alma Transit system. The St. Louis and Ithaca city councils and the Pine River Township board all voted unanimously over the summer to put the measure on the ballot.

PASSED (59%-41%): Missoula, MT voters approved a property tax increase to expand Mountain Line bus service frequency, help fund the area’s zero-fare program, and support conversion to an electric bus fleet.

FAILED (45%-55%): Newton County, GA’s proposal for a 1 percent Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax for transportation was rejected by voters. Revenues would have been shared among the cities located within the county using a formula, and each city would have decided how to allocate its funds.

PASSED (70%-30%): Voters in the Bay Area, CA passed a 1/8 cent sales tax to provide dedicated funding for the region’s commuter rail, Caltrain. The tax is expected to generate an estimated $108 million annually, which will help provide a lifeline for the rail line as it faces the possibility of a shutdown during the pandemic due to low ridership.

WITHDRAWN: Residents of North Carolina were set to vote on a $1.15 billion bond measure to fund the construction and renovation of highways, roads, bridges, and related road infrastructure. The measure also included $1.95 billion in education bonds, but it was withdrawn.ALL PASSED: Voters passed measures to renew existing transportation and transit funding in the State of Arkansas (passed), Bellingham, WA (passed), Monroe, MI (passed) and Wheeling and Bethlehem, WV (passed). Similar renewals largely also passed in 2020 despite COVID uncertainties, as we covered in a blog earlier this fall.

State safety targets show need for Congress to further prioritize safety

People on bikes waiting at a stop sign to cross a congested intersection

The following blog post is co-authored and published in partnership with the League of American Bicyclists, a national non-profit advocating to make cycling accessible and safe for all Americans, and the National Complete Streets Coalition, a non-profit, non-partisan alliance of public interest organizations and transportation professionals committed to the development and implementation of Complete Streets policies and practices and a program of Smart Growth America.

For decades, state departments of transportation have treated pedestrian and cyclists fatalities like weather events: something that increases simply as people drive more, putting these deaths outside of the control of DOTs. But with COVID-19 proving this to be false, it’s past time for state DOTs to implement performance measures to reduce the number of people killed while walking or biking. Here’s our comparison of state safety targets.

(Update: 2/2021 – This post originally stated that the number of states setting targets to improve fatality/injury numbers was increasing each year, which is not the case. 18 states set negative targets in 2018, and 20 states did so in 2020. That language has been changed. – Ed.)

Transportation policy can take a long time. In 2012, Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) which required the US Department of Transportation (US DOT) to establish a safety performance measure to assess federal investments in transportation. In 2016, the Obama administration promulgated a final rule. And now, in 2020 the US DOT has assessed state safety performance measures.

Most transportation advocates believe that performance measures are critically important to the future of federal transportation policy. Performance measures require data collection by states, regular reporting assessed by US DOT, and result in financial impacts for states that do not meet performance targets. While this concept is pretty simple, it is a profound shift in transportation policy towards accountability. It is also more important than ever in 2020, as the rate of roadway fatalities jumped 20 percent, even though driving was down 17 percent due to Coronavirus-related travel restrictions

Non-motorized safety performance measures were opposed by 23 state DOTs and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. They exist thanks to the work of many advocates, including nearly 10,000 individuals who contacted the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during the rulemaking process.

The good news: In every year that states have set safety targets, most states (at least 30) have set targets that would reduce non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries. If state DOTs are serious about reaching zero traffic deaths, this must continue and they must do more to make these targets come true.

The bad news: Many states are setting safety targets that anticipate more people dying or being seriously injured while biking and walking. In 2020, 20 states set safety targets of more deaths and serious injuries—more than the 18 that did so back in 2018. For those 2018 targets, six of those 18 states exceeded even their grim targets of increased fatalities and serious injuries. At least 10 states have targets that are clearly trending up, sometimes dramatically, including in states with very poor safety records for people biking and walking. This implies that those states do not have a serious theory for reducing non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries or are not serious about reaching zero traffic deaths. And these bad targets are in the context of the US making much less progress on traffic deaths than peer countries.

Pennsylvania’s safety targets versus average fatalities and serious injuries

For example, Pennsylvania has never set a non-motorized safety target that was lower than the 5-year baseline average for fatalities and serious injuries. The FHWA assessment was that Pennsylvania has not met its target or made significant progress. The state’s targets have trended up significantly, implying that the state has no serious plans to reverse its poor performance.

A little more than a third of the states that FHWA found met their safety performance target across all modes had higher levels of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries than their 5-year baseline average. This means that despite data showing that people who bike and walk are less safe, these states will not be incentivized to spend Highway Safety Improvement Program funds on safety improvements for people who bike and walk.

Safety performance target assessments

The FHWA cautions against drawing conclusions based upon its safety performance target assessments. Each state sets its target in a unique way and missing a target may mean different things in different states. Sometimes these differences are notable, like Florida setting a target of zero, although the state has no chance of meeting that target (the state of Florida also notes by their own target that they expected the rate of driving to have a greater impact on safety than anything else).

We believe that there are still lessons to be learned from comparing state targets assessments and here are a few.

1. The non-motorized safety performance target as the worst performing safety target.

More states failed to meet their target and more states failed to improve relative to their baseline than any other type of target.

2. Only four states—Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont—set a goal to decrease non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries and achieved it.

This low rate of meeting reduction targets is unlikely to be due to overly ambitious targets (like Florida’s target of zero) because more than 75 percent of the states that missed their target to reduce non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries performed worse than their 5-year baseline average.

3. Only 32 percent of states performed better than their five-year baseline average.

This is understandable given that pedestrian and bicyclist deaths hit 30-year highs in the period assessed, but highlights the widespread nature of pedestrian and bicyclist safety problems.

4. Four of the five states with the most bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities—California, Florida, New York, Texas, and Georgia—performed worse than their five-year baseline average.

New York was the only state to improve upon its average. Florida and Georgia were the only states in this group that set targets to improve.

States that fail to meet their own targets (some of which are targets to have less safe roadways) suffer very minor consequences—all states have to do is spend safety funds on safety projects and submit an implementation plan. But for the first time, thanks to Congress requiring performance measures, we can see how they are performing and hold them to account.

For decades, many departments of transportation (like Florida stated in their safety report) and transportation experts have claimed that increases in driving dictate increases in traffic fatalities and serious injuries. This claim allows transportation agencies to treat traffic fatalities somewhat like weather events — outside of their control. However during the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen that this claim cannot be true. The National Safety Council found in the first six months of 2020, the rate of roadway fatalities jumped 20 percent, even though driving was down 17 percent. Transportation agencies must recognize their responsibility to make safe systems rather than claiming they are powerless to make roads safer.

The United States has reached a point where the transportation sector is the go-to example of a sector where deaths are tolerated. Congress, and decision makers at all levels of government, need to take decisive action to reorient the transportation sector to prioritize safety. The House INVEST Act took important steps to prioritize safety and Congress should build upon those steps in the future.

We’ll never address climate change without making it possible for people to drive less

With transportation accounting for the largest share of carbon emissions in the U.S., we’ll never achieve ambitious climate targets or create more livable and equitable communities if we don’t find ways to allow people to get around outside of a car—or provide more housing in places where that’s already an option. Our new report shows how we can reach those targets while building a more just and equitable society.

Join us on October 28th for a short online discussion about what’s in Driving Down Emissions. We’ll be walking through the report briefly and sharing some stories about how one state has had some success—and the limitations of electric vehicles. Register here.

It seems like climate-focused policymakers have a single-minded obsession with the silver bullet solution of everyone in America buying a brand new electric car, while ignoring an underlying system that requires everyone to drive further every year, kills people walking in record numbers, and creates communities that cuts people off from jobs and opportunities. Yet the simple truth is that we’ll never achieve our ambitious climate targets or create more livable and equitable communities if we don’t find ways to allow people to get around outside of a car.

We need a different set of solutions to pair with one day being able to convert our current gas-powered vehicle fleet to electricity. Driving Down Emissions, a new report from Transportation for America and Smart Growth America, explores how our land-use and transportation decisions are inextricably connected, and unpacks five strategies that can make a significant dent in the growth of emissions while building a more just and equitable society:

Getting onerous government regulations out of the way of providing more homes where people naturally drive less;
Making safety the top priority for street design to encourage walking, biking, and shorter driving trips;
Instituting GHG reduction and less driving as goals of the transportation system;
Investing heavily in other options for getting around, and;
Prioritizing access to destinations.

Reducing transportation emissions and reducing the distance we drive is both needed and possible. The vast majority of Americans are clamoring to spend fewer hours behind the wheel, not more. Only a cynic would declare that Americans want to drive more and more each year to accomplish all they need to do each day. Polling and consumer preference research has consistently shown that millions would prefer to live in walkable, connected places where trips are short and there’s a menu of options for getting around.

Yet that demand is going unmet, and some of the biggest obstacles to meeting it are onerous government regulations and policies (at all levels) that make it nearly impossible to build more housing in places that fit this bill, or to retrofit streets to make more areas safe to walk or bike in. These factors combine to make existing housing in walkable places unaffordable and unattainable.

Let that sink in: millions of Americans would love to live in places that guarantee shorter trips, fewer trips, more ways to get around, and less emissions—whether climate change is their motivating factor or not. But millions can’t find a place they can afford because of zoning requirements that make it either incredibly difficult or downright illegal to meet this demand, and because transportation designs and objectives that make it dangerous to try to get around elsewhere without a car.

If lower-income Americans can’t afford a car then they have no choice but to limit the possibilities for their lives to what can be reached on dangerous streets by foot or bike, or via infrequent buses or trains on underfunded transit systems that fail to connect them to opportunity, even if the emissions are low. Finding ways to put more housing in places where people can drive less—and making those homes attainable and affordable—will be a key aspect of transitioning to a low-carbon economy without placing a new burden on lower-income Americans.

This report shows that reducing emissions from transportation is entirely doable—which is a good thing, because there are other areas where making significant reductions will be far more difficult. While we don’t want to repeat the economic conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the massive drops in traffic and emissions during the shutdown showed us the potential benefits of lowering driving rates, even if just a modest amount. And while we have no idea how to completely electrify our fleet of vehicles or how long that transition will even take, we can absolutely lower emissions in a short timeframe by meeting the demand for more housing in smart locations—helping millions of Americans who want to live in places where they can emit less and drive less find ways to do so.

The urgency of our climate crisis requires it.

Download Driving Down Emissions

Transportation for America’s statement on surface transportation policy extension

Late last week, Congress and the President extended federal surface transportation policy for one year after failing to reform and reauthorize the program this year before its expiration on September 30. Transportation for America released the following statement:

“With this extension, we now have another year to enact real reform that will save lives, prioritize maintenance, and improve access and connectivity,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “Will Congress use this time to double down on the status quo and simply have a debate about money, or will they take advantage of this generational opportunity to truly reform the program? Congress must not waste this valuable time. A more modern transportation program is essential to an equitable economic recovery and a cleaner transportation system that no longer is the leading sector in greenhouse gas emissions. Congress must find a way to meaningfully address these issues and others by reforming our country’s transportation policy.”

Will Congress hold Amtrak accountable for providing essential passenger rail service?

Communities large and small, urban and rural, are served by Amtrak’s national network of long distance routes, providing essential connections to jobs, services, and the broader economy. Amtrak is threatening to dramatically cut these services, severing essential connections despite clear directives from Congress. Here’s a rundown from a recent hearing on this issue in the House Transportation and Infrastructure’s railroad subcommittee.

An Amtrak train in Grand Rapid, MI, this past July. Photo by Russell Sekeet on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Amtrak has been hard hit through the pandemic. Ridership has cratered—especially on the Northeast Regional and Acela services—but the railroad has continued to operate nearly all its routes especially as many places have cautiously reopened. Reduced ticket revenues, combined with extra costs for cleaning and protective equipment, have led the company to a point where they are considering cutting many daily long-distance service down to just three-days-a-week in many places and making significant cuts to its workforce.

These massive cuts would have an outsize impact on rural communities and take away valuable lifeline services that often are the only connection between smaller areas and bigger cities, connecting thousands with vital services. Noting that ridership is actually down the least on the long-distance routes, T4America chair John Robert Smith told the Daily Yonder that rural communities consider these services essential, and that “you greatly limit communities served by 7-day a week service when you go to three.” (Read more from the Rail Passengers Association about the impact of these cuts)

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have expressed deep concern about these perhaps penny wise but definitely pound-foolish plans. This week the members of the House’s main rail subcommittee held a hearing this week to understand Amtrak’s decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic—and ask some pointed questions.

T4America worked to educate committee staff about the consequences of Amtrak’s planned cuts to long-distance services from daily to three-days per week on most routes. T4A provided resources to committee staff with sample questions and expected responses based on Amtrak’s recent and past assertions.

Opening the hearing, Chairman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) echoed many of the same priorities we share. Lipinski affirmed past lessons from deep cuts made back in 1994, that cutting long-distance trains from daily to three-days per week doesn’t work for passengers or taxpayers, as utility of the service collapses, and subsidies per rider increase. He praised the work of former Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) to restore daily long-distance services, and emphasized Amtrak’s role as a national public service rather than a purely profit-making enterprise.

No member of the committee sided with Amtrak in its position that cutting service and furloughing staff was necessary or prudent. To the contrary, many members, including Republicans and Democrats alike, criticized the railroad for first taking supplemental funding, then planning to still lay off staff and cut services. One of the biggest critiques is that the massive service cuts and layoffs would only save Amtrak a marginal amount of money in the end, especially when the costs are factored in to restore service and train new staff down the road.

Some members took issue with Amtrak’s plans to restore a 7 percent employer 401k match for management employees, that is timed to coincide with the railroad’s service cuts and frontline staff furloughs. Amtrak’s CEO Bill Flynn defended the decision as necessary to retain management personnel, especially at the lower levels, after making cuts earlier in the pandemic. Flynn also went on record saying that executive bonuses and incentive pay would be suspended for three years, but it was not immediately clear when the three-year prohibition began.

When asked about continuing the long-distance services long term, Flynn said Amtrak would run services as directed by Congress, but that he “100 percent supports” the long-distance trains as part of Amtrak’s future. Flynn cited Amtrak’s recent purchase of 75 new locomotives for the long-distance services as proof of this commitment. However, locomotives can be reassigned to other services, and his statement made no mention of allocating specialized equipment for long-distance service like sleeping and dining cars which the railroad has recently taken delivery of but still does not fully utilize.

Rail Passenger Association President and CEO Jim Mathews testified powerfully about the impact of service cuts not only on long-distance riders, but to the hundreds of communities served by Amtrak trains across middle America. “It is not — it is only required to minimize subsidies,” Mathews said. “A conversation about [Amtrak] profit ignores the benefit that communities receive.”

Mathews outlined a study that we helped the RPA produce which estimates losses in visitor spending of over $2.3 billion to station communities and regions if Amtrak’s planned service cuts last for nine months. The study uses a methodology T4A helped develop as part of our longstanding work to restore service to the Gulf Coast, in partnership with the Trent Lott Center at the University of Southern Mississippi.

When it comes to those who are on the frontlines of providing Amtrak’s service, members from two of Amtrak’s unions focused on the sacrifices they and their members have made to maintain service across the Amtrak network, and the public health dangers Amtrak workers are still facing.

Arthur Maratea, National President, Transportation Communications Union (TCU/IAM); and Amy Griffin, President of America Local 1460, Transport Workers Union of America spoke on behalf of Amtral’s frontline workers. They also addressed a shortage of coach cleaners on the railroad, and say Amtrak is not hiring to fill open positions despite the increased need for sanitation, endangering workers and the traveling public.

One of the best perspectives came from an urban Democrat from Massachusetts, who understands that service for people in states far away from his district is what’s at stake, but that a unified national system is vital for everyone. From Trains Magazine:

Near the end of session, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told Flynn, “I fully support using money you make on the north end of the Northeast Corridor to provide service to some of those rural areas — the ‘red’ states. Those lines don’t necessarily benefit my district but they benefit the country. … I hope you take very seriously the credibility that you will lose by engaging in these furloughs, and the representational damage that comes to Amtrak management. I’m asking you to reconsider that [because] it is not going to save the day.” Cutting 2000 employees, Lynch said, “is going to reduce service and spiral that bottom-line deficit. You’re going to lose the faith of members of Congress like me, who are behind you, because of this decision.”

Why the Senate’s transportation bill is terrible for climate

Last summer, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a long-term transportation bill that was praised for its climate title, marking the first time the word “climate” was included in a bipartisan transportation bill. But while this climate title was worth celebrating, the bill overall would actually result in more emissions, not less. Here’s how, and why we need a different approach.

Check out the recap of our webinar with Third Way, where we discussed why the Senate’s bill is bad for climate, why the House’s INVEST Act is much better, and what advocates can do to help Senators improve their next transportation bill.

A protected bike lane in Washington, DC. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Last July, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed the America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act (ATIA), this committee’s stab at reauthorizing transportation policy once the existing law expires this September. Amid the status quo of more money for existing federal transportation programs, the bill would spend $10 billion over five years on a new suite of climate and carbon reduction programs, including funds to incentivize states to develop and adopt carbon reduction strategies and grants for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. But this $10 billion for climate will fail to accomplish much when the rest of the bill funnels $277 billion into traditional programs that are perfectly designed to increase emissions.

Here’s how—and how the House’s recently-passed bill will actually shift the climate paradigm.

To reduce emissions, we need to allow people to drive less

Transportation accounts for the largest share of carbon emissions in the U.S., and those emissions are rising—even as other sectors have improved. This is because vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is increasing, negating the 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of vehicles on our roads between 1990-2016. Carbon emissions rose by 21 percent over that period because VMT rose by 50 percent.

We won’t be able to increase fuel efficiency and electrify cars faster than VMT is rising, reducing the impact of electrification particularly in the next 10-20 years. And VMT is rising because the current federal transportation program—the broken program that the Senate is proposing to effectively renew with more money for five years—increases driving by design. U.S. transportation policy is focused on building more and wider highways instead of maintaining what we have, and without making sure that those new highways actually improve people’s access to the places they need to reach. This divides communities by the highway from the things they need across the highway and pushes development (and the people who live there) further away from the things they need, making them drive further and further just to get where they need to go on a daily basis.

The bill passed in the House is much better for climate

If we want to reduce transportation emissions, we must reform the programs at the heart of federal transportation policy that allow and even encourage states to build new roads and expand existing ones in a way that divides communities and pushes development further out. The Senate bill’s $10 billion for climate doesn’t stand a chance against the unchanged status quo, but the bill recently passed by the House of Representatives—the INVEST Act—is a step in the right direction.

For one, the INVEST Act requires that states maintain roads before building new ones. This is a huge step toward reducing unwise road building and expansion that often cuts off short local trips making people drive more, displaces existing communities (more often people of color) and encourages more development far from everything those residents will need to get to. That is the status quo maintained by the ATIA: increasing VMT, the backlog of maintenance needs, and congestion.

While the Senate created an Accessibility Data Pilot Program in the ATIA, the House took that up a notch by creating a performance measure that requires states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to improve access to jobs and services by all modes. This means that project sponsors must determine whether people traveling (not just driving) can reach jobs, schools, groceries, medical care and other necessities.

Under the INVEST Act’s performance measure, states and MPOs will be penalized if they fail to use federal funding to improve that access—effectively incentivizing project sponsors to not build new or expanded roads. New roads don’t help nondrivers and they don’t help drivers get where they need to go any faster if they have to travel further, which is often the result of these projects.

In another major shift, the INVEST Act also requires that states measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation system. States that reduce emissions can be rewarded with increased flexibility on how they spend federal dollars, while states that fail to reduce emissions will face penalties, as we wrote in this blog with our partners at Third Way.

These aren’t the only ways the House has taken a far superior, holistic approach to the Senate on climate. While not perfect, the INVEST Act makes significant progress towards electrifying our vehicle fleet, increasing transit funding, and making biking and walking safer (read more about these policies here).

The Senate’s bill doesn’t go far enough

One thing is certain: the Senate doesn’t go nearly far enough. To be clear, we understand that the climate champions do not have the numbers to overcome the climate deniers in the Senate and that getting any climate language in their bill took real work. Kudos to those that fought for these programs. However, there should be an understanding from real climate champions about its weakness and how little it does to attack the underlying climate problems with our approach to transportation in this country.

These champions might tout the climate provisions they got but vote against the bill, which happens all of the time. Or they could vote for the bill while being open about the continuing problems caused by the 96.7 percent of the funding that does nothing to address climate, much of which will harm our efforts to stave off catastrophic climate change. Or if not those options, they could loudly praise the superior House bill and welcome those ideas to the conversation in conference. And to be clear, this isn’t just an issue with those seeking to address climate in the Senate but also to those stakeholders that work on the issue from across the country, who praised this bill as if it made real change and didn’t just give a tiny portion of funding to fix the problem that is continuing to be generated by 30 times the funding given to climate.

It is too late for this meek approach. We all must do more. It’s time for bold action, not just an add-on to the status quo.

Bipartisan, climate-forward transportation legislation is possible—but only if lawmakers rethink what transportation investments can achieve. Check out our director Beth Osborne’s take on why bipartisanship on its own can’t make a transportation bill great.

Thriving Together: A springboard for equitable recovery & resilience in communities across America

In our work to inform the policy response to COVID-19 and how the pandemic is compounding housing, climate, and other crises, we’ve emphasized the need for policy makers to take a unified approach to these issues rather than treating each one separately. The problems are interconnected, and our solutions must be as well.

But a new collaborative effort from more than 100 people and organizations, including Transportation for America, takes that work even further. Thriving Together: A springboard for Equitable Recovery & Resilience in Communities Across America goes beyond the issues of transportation, land use, and our built environment to tackle the whole person and our whole society, creating a jumping off place—a springboard—that “shows how we can convert our immense loss from COVID-19 and other crises into renewal.”

The Deep Dive on Reliable Transportation (page 232) is a comprehensive look at how we ended up with inequities present in transportation today and what we can do in both the short and longer term to create a more equitable transportation system.

Download the report Read the two pager Learn more about the project

Thriving People and Places

Nationwide rally for emergency public transit funds in COVID-19 relief legislation

WASHINGTON, DC—Joined by scores of transit riders, transit agency executives from coast to coast, and union representatives, Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García, and Rep. Jerry Nadler made a powerful plea for Congress to come together and provide at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit during a “Save Public Transit” rally Wednesday. The rally was organized by the Riders Alliance of New York, Alliance for a Just Society, and Transportation for America, and co-sponsored by 39 other organizations.

“Public transit is not an option. Public transit is a lifeline,” said Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García. “The working men and women at all transit agencies across the country roll up their sleeves and go to work everyday. They enable the rest of our essential frontline workers to get the job done. Now it’s our turn.”

“We have to do this, we have no choice—it’s the decent thing to do,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler. “The function of government is to let people live, and the economy needs to survive.”

“I fully support and will fight to secure our proposal of $32 billion to help our nation’s mass transit stay in operation and recover from the crisis,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “As a New Yorker, the transit system is the blood, arteries and veins of our system. Without it, we die. Investing in mass transit now will ensure that hard working families can keep relying on the train, the bus, the subway, to earn a living.”

“$32 billion dollars is absolutely essential to maintain current essential service, and make sure we can maintain and sustain transit systems that [are the] lifeblood of so many of our communities,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen. “We need to make sure this emergency relief is included in the next round of legislation.

These four members of Congress were joined by dozens of others, including public transit executives, union representatives, and most importantly, transit riders from a half-dozen cities—including essential healthcare workers, students, and others—who vividly described how they rely on public transit daily to connect them to work and other daily needs, and how their lives would change dramatically if agencies are forced to dramatically curtail service or raise fares.

Massive reductions in transit revenue—a result of plummeting ridership and reduced tax receipts from COVID-19 shutdowns—is threatening the viability of public transit systems, putting millions of Americans’ access to jobs, healthcare, grocery stores, and other services essential to surviving the pandemic at risk.

The full rally can be watched here:

Quotes from speakers

“Transit agencies are seeing unprecedented levels of revenue decrease. The financial position that they’re in right now is untenable. Congress did the right thing by providing badly needed resources in the CARES Act but going into the fifth month of this pandemic, more assistance is absolutely essential. We’re proud to join everyone in this call calling on Congress to provide at least $32 billion in the next COVID response bill,” said Larry Willis, President of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO. “Without relief, transit systems will face damage that can’t be reversed. Not just jobs and operating subways, but as a labor organization representing many unions, we’ll see cutbacks in many sectors. We call on Congress to save our economy and protect frontline workers in our community.”

“At the end of the day, transit workers are the unsung heroes of the pandemic. We were the ones on the frontline. We were the ones who ferried other essential workers to the frontlines of this fight and we have paid the price,” said John Samuelsen, President of the Transport Workers Union International. “Around 145 transit workers in the TWU have died in the line of duty from COVID-19. Thousands of others have been sick and will be affected for the rest of their lives. We came to work diligently across the country. $32 billion dollars is what we need.”

“The truth is we haven’t faced a crisis like this. Without quick action by Congress this month, the MTA will need to make painful choices to balance our books. It will harm our customers,” said Patrick Foye, CEO of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “The precipitous decline in revenues means we can’t cut our way out of the crisis while keeping the region running. I remember the 1970s when the MTA fell into disrepair. We can’t go back there. We’ll fight on behalf of fellow New Yorkers. We can’t afford to do anything else.”

“We ask so much of our transportation workers precisely because the service they provide is so essential,” said Leslie Richards, General Manager of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA). “Throughout the COVID-19 crisis SEPTA has provided critical service to ensure that medical and other essential workers can get to their jobs and residents can access life-sustaining services. The emergency investment of at least $32 billion dollars we are urging Congress to include in the next coronavirus relief bill will preserve our ability to provide safe and critical service now and into the future.”

“If ever there was any doubt that transit is an essential service—and I’m not sure if there ever was—the pandemic has proven just how essential it is,” said Dorval Carter, president of the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). “In Chicago, 20 percent of riders during the stay at home order were medical workers. Twenty-six percent said they wouldn’t be able to get to work without public transit. And sixty-two percent would not have been able to get essential things like food.”

“It’s expensive to live in the Bay Area. BART is the connection between affordable housing and jobs,” said Bob Powers, General Manager of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). “I spent several hours in the BART system yesterday. Our riders wore masks, spread safely. Stations and trains were clean, disinfected. Hand sanitizer stations were filled. We handed out masks in the stations. The ventilation system replaces every 90 seconds. For us to provide the quality of service so many need, whether in San Francisco, Chicago, or New York, and to prevent a mobility divide, we need Congress to act now.”

“New Orleanians are tough. We got through Katrina, and we’ll get through COVID-19. But we absolutely need Congress’s help right now,” said Alex Wiggins, CEO of New Orleans Regional Transit Authority. “Our revenue, which we rely on to provide service, is substantially down. We have to maintain the mobility of our patrons who rely on us to get between home and work. We call on Congress to fund transit with an additional $32 billion to keep us going through 2021.”

“The mobility divide is as important as the digital divide,” said Dr. Floun’say Caver, Interim CEO of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority. “The mobility divide perpetuates economic inequality in our communities. Seventy-nine percent of RTA riders are minorities, and 60 percent of riders earn less than $35,000 per year. RTA needs to be a catalyst for the economic and social recovery of our community. We implore Congress to provide a minimum of $32 billion to support the economic mobility of our minority community members and those who are less affluent.”

“I live in New Orleans. Public transit is my bread and butter,” said Judy Stevens, a New Orleans transit rider. “I’m an essential healthcare worker. I don’t own a car. I use transit to get to work, grocery, doctor appointments, all daily activities. I rely and depend on it. With cutbacks to service during COVID, riders aren’t able to social distance right now. Please Congress, listen to riders, and fully fund transit service.”

“In Cleveland, our transit agency didn’t have the resources it needed to support social distancing. More federal funding for transit would make the difference between illness and health for many riders like me, and it would make a difference in other aspects of our lives as well,” said Dana Beveridge, a Cleveland transit rider. “For those of us who don’t drive public transit dictates where we shop, live, work. So much depends on if there’s a bus that’s on time or a bus at all. I implore Congress to provide the much-needed emergency relief that will save transit and save lives.”

T4America statement on Senate Republicans’ HEALS Act

WASHINGTON, DC: Yesterday evening, Senate Republicans released their proposal for the next round of COVID-19 relief funding. The proposal, called the HEALS Act, contains no emergency funding for public transportation operations or passenger rail. Transportation for America released the following statement in response.

“Stay-at-home orders to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have hit transit agencies very hard. At the same time, transit remains critical for essential workers to reach their jobs and will be central to restarting the economy if we want everyone who wants to work to be able to get there. But the Senate leaves transit out of the HEALS Act,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “Americans need reliable, convenient, and affordable transportation options now more than ever. Any final bill must reflect that transit needs at least $32 billion in order to survive this crisis.”

“The response to COVID-19 has slowed travel between cities by a huge amount. Interestingly, the Senate recognized in the HEALS Act the importance of keeping airports operating through the crisis, but not passenger rail,” said John Robert Smith, chairman of Transportation for America. “However, many in small town America still rely on intercity rail to get to hospitals and essential services. It is irresponsible to leave many people in small towns and rural areas disconnected from Amtrak and other passenger rail services at this precarious time.”

Five things Congress can do to save transit

Public transportation is in crisis. Transit agencies are suffering tremendous losses in ridership and farebox revenue, as well as state and local revenues, with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the multi-year transportation bill passed in the House of Representatives that includes some relief for public transit won’t pass anytime soon. Here’s what Congress must do to truly save transit from collapsing.

Public transportation is facing an existential crisis. Transit agencies across the country are making drastic cuts to service to cope with depleting budgets, severing millions of people from access to essential jobs and services, including healthcare and grocery stores. Any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to connect people to opportunities and these essential services.

But recent transportation and stimulus bills didn’t supply transit agencies with sufficient emergency funding, nor make critical, short-term policy changes to help agencies weather this crisis. The HEROES Act, House Democrats latest economic stimulus measure, included $15 billion for public transit, less than half of the need. The INVEST Act, a long-term transportation authorization passed as part of a large infrastructure package in the House earlier this month, fundamentally changes the programs at the heart of federal transportation policy to help communities improve access, safety, and their maintenance backlogs. But it only provided transit agencies with $5 billion in emergency assistance—a far cry from the $32 billion over 160 organizations, including Atlanta’s MARTA and New York City’s MTA, have asked for.

Last week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) released their proposal for fiscal year 2021 spending levels. While the subcommittee supplied transit construction programs, like New and Small Starts, with emergency funding, there is no funding for direct emergency operating support for transit agencies like was provided in the CARES Act.

We can’t afford for transit to stop running. If Congress does nothing, public transportation won’t be able to provide Americans with a convenient, affordable, rapid and sustainable transportation option when our country needs it the most. Here’s what Congress can do.

NOTE: while some of these recommendations are included in the HEROES Act, the INVEST Act, or the House FY21 appropriations, no bill includes all of these recommendations and none of these bills have been signed into law (or even stand a chance of consideration by the Senate). Transit agencies are hurting now, and urgent action is required. Each of these recommendations work together, and we urge Congress to consider this as a package.

Provide at least $32 billion for emergency operations support and allow transit agencies to use 2019 ridership data to receive formula grants in FY21 and FY22.

Public transportation is the bedrock of our transportation infrastructure, connecting millions of Americans to jobs, schools, services and opportunities every single day. Yet this essential service might not survive COVID-19. Transit agency revenues are dwindling due to dramatically reduced fare collection, diminished local funding sources, and other impacts from a contracting economy. Further, ridership levels are plummeting as transit agencies actively discourage non-essential travel. With recurring federal transit funding based in part on ridership, these historic low ridership levels put future funding at risk. Without emergency help today, and a guarantee of long term stability, essential transit service will suffer.

To ensure that transit agencies can continue to operate, Congress should: (1) provide at least $32 billion for emergency operating support, and (2) allow transit agencies to use 2019 ridership data to receive formula grants in FY21 and FY22, holding transit providers harmless for the loss of ridership due to COVID-19, as is allowed in the recently-passed INVEST Act.

Require detailed, directive, guidance on how to safely operate, and provide necessary personal protective equipment (PPE)

Over 100 U.S. transit workers have died from COVID-19. In New York City, transit workers are dying at three times the rate of police and fire emergency personnel combined. Yet thousands of transit personnel work everyday to connect Americans to jobs and healthcare, many doing so without access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Another factor contributing to transit workers’ greater risk of contracting COVID-19 is underwhelming federal guidance for transit agencies regarding the purchase, distribution, and use of PPE, and how to safely operate during this crisis. The CDC guidance for transit operators, maintenance workers, and station staff does not provide clear enough instruction, leaving local communities, states, and transit agencies to develop a patchwork of rules. The lack of prescriptive, national regulations, means some transit workers and riders will be more protected than others and leaves safety to the discretion, and political whims, of local communities.

To improve safety for the essential transit workforce, Congress should (1) require detailed, directive, federal guidance on how to safely equip personnel and work environments and operate transit services, (2) supply transit workers with PPE.

Eliminate the local match for existing and upcoming projects in the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) pipeline and increase annual funding for CIG

COVID-19 is decimating state and local governments’ budgets, constricting local governments’ ability to raise matching funds to receive funding from the CIG program. There are $23 billion worth of projects in the CIG pipeline, demonstrating the demand for additional public transit across the country. These projects create manufacturing jobs and support local economic development. To reduce strain on local budgets and support local economic development, Congress should (1) Provide no less than the FY19 funding level of $2.55 billion and $3.1527 billion to cover the additional proposals; (2) eliminate the local match for new CIG projects in the pipeline and retroactively reduce or eliminate the local match for existing projects, and (3) prevent Federal Transit Administration from changing overall project ratings due to changes in local commitments or ridership projection.

Provide at least $7 billion in public transit formula funding to save jobs and protect transit’s future

Some kinds of spending create more jobs, faster, than others. Transit maintenance has proven to be an effective job creator because less money is spent on equipment and permits and more on wages. Transit agencies face a $99 billion maintenance backlog due to chronic underfunding. By investing in transit maintenance, we can improve essential service and create jobs quickly.

To create jobs and repair essential public transit systems, Congress should (1) provide $7 billion in formula maintenance funding, (2) eliminate the local match for these funds in FY21 and FY22.

Provide a fair share for transit by ending the “80-20” split and funding transit at the same level as highways

Investing in transit creates jobs quickly and supports service essential to our economic recovery; yet, since 1982, Congress has provided transit with only about 20 percent of dedicated surface transportation funding. This “80-20 split” in transportation spending has left transit chronically underfunded for decades and has created the perception that highways are more deserving of support, and more affordable, than transit. With the gas tax increasingly unable to support transportation spending, the rationale for the 80-20 split no longer applies. To support our economic recovery, Congress should (1) not default to the 80-20 split, and (2) provide funding for transit at least at the same level as highways.

Download these recommendations as a fact sheet.

Amendments we’re tracking to the House transportation bill

The INVEST Act could be a turning point for the federal transportation program, almost hitting the mark on Transportation for America’s three principles for transportation investment. But a few amendments could make—or break—the bill. Stay up to date here.

The House transportation committee’s markup of the INVEST Act starts at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. Get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, visit our hub for all T4America content about the INVEST Act, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

So far well over 200 amendments have been proposed. Bookmark this page, as we’ll be posting updates to the most notable amendments we’re tracking closely. Smart Growth America is fighting for four amendments in particular to be included in the final bill:

Garcia #63: An amendment that strengthens the fix-it-first provision of the bill;
Garcia #64: An amendment that increases transit funding to the same level as highways;
Garcia #65: An amendment that sheds some light on a misguided transportation metric, Level of Service;
Cohen #91: And an amendment that expands the eligibility for transit-oriented development in the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.

Tracker

Find this table on the web here in case it does not display well below. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will start consideration of this bill via a (remote) markup on Wednesday, June 17th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. We expect the committee to take at least a day if not more to mark up the bill before they move to a final vote to advance it to the full House. We’ll be keeping this tracker updated as the markup proceeds, but stay tuned especially to @t4america on twitter for more real-time updates.

For those of you that live in a House transportation district, send a message to your rep and urge them to support the INVEST Act and to support these four amendments. If you’re not sure if your rep is on the committee, just go on over to take action and the form will let you know.

TAKE ACTION

House transportation bill goes big on climate

House transportation leaders introduced legislation to update our national transportation program to address climate, equity, safety and public health. Climate advocates and climate leaders on the Hill should recognize the strides taken with this proposal from Congress and fight to protect those changes in the bill.

This is a joint post by Transportation for America and Third Way, co-written by Rayla Bellis, T4America program manager, and Alexander Laska, Third Way Transportation Policy Advisor for the Climate and Energy Program. It is also posted on Third Way’s site.

The House transportation committee’s markup of the INVEST Act starts at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. View our amendment tracker here, get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, visit our hub for all T4America content about the INVEST Act, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

While it isn’t perfect, the INVEST Act introduced in the House takes some very important steps, including:

Measuring and tracking important outcomes like GHG emissions and access to jobs and services.
Making significant progress towards electrifying our vehicle and transit fleets; and
Supporting investments in low emissions transportation modes, including:
- Supporting transit with more money and better policy; and
- Supporting biking and walking with a comprehensive approach to improving safety.

For too long, federal transportation policy has prioritized car travel and the infrastructure to support it while neglecting cleaner and more affordable transportation options like transit, walking, and biking. We are now seeing the consequences of decades of spending in line with those priorities: car-ownership is a prerequisite for participating in the economy in most communities, and many people are driving further every year to reach work and daily necessities. It is unsafe, inconvenient, or flat-out impossible to reach those destinations by any other means in much of the country. As a result, transportation is now the nation’s single largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG), accounting for 29 percent of emissions, 83 percent of which comes from driving. While cars and trucks will and should remain an important part of our transportation system, any effective strategy to reduce emissions from transportation must make it easier for Americans to take fewer and shorter car trips to access work and meet basic needs.

Last week the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released their transportation reauthorization proposal. Third Way and Transportation for America unveiled a scorecard earlier this week to show how the new House reauthorization proposal and previous Senate proposal stack up against the recommendations in our new Transportation and Climate Federal Policy Agenda. The House bill makes significant strides in several areas in line with our federal policy agenda:

Measures and tracks important outcomes

We measure all the wrong things in our transportation system and therefore get the wrong outcomes. Instead of measuring whether people can get where they need to go (e.g., jobs, healthcare, and grocery stores), we measure how fast cars are moving. Rather than being required to reduce transportation emissions, states are distributed more money if their residents drive more and burn more gasoline.

The House bill takes important steps in reversing these perverse incentives. It requires states to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation system (a similar requirement from USDOT was rolled back early in the Trump administration). States that reduce emissions can be rewarded with increased flexibility, while states that fail to reduce emissions will face penalties. This is a major shift, and it will lead to significantly different outcomes if states are truly held accountable to these requirements.

In addition, the bill requires a new performance measure to help states and MPOs evaluate how well their transportation systems provide access to jobs and services. This access measure is monumental. For the first time at the national level, recipients of federal transportation funding will be required to measure whether their transportation system is performing its most essential function: connecting people to the things they need, whether they drive, take transit, walk or bike. This will have profound impacts in communities, including directing more funds to projects that shorten or eliminate the need for driving trips. It also happens that providing a high level of access, especially for nondrivers, correlates with lower GHG emissions.

Makes significant progress towards electrification

Decarbonizing our transportation system will require us to transition quickly to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)–and that means making sure we have the infrastructure ready to support those vehicles. The INVEST In America Act establishes a new $1.4 billion program to deploy electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure in public places where everyone will have access. The grant program will focus on projects that demonstrate the most effective emissions reductions. We believe the program should additionally focus on ensuring this infrastructure is accessible to low-income communities; this, combined with policies to make ZEVs more affordable, will help ensure all Americans can benefit from the air quality improvements and other benefits of clean vehicles.

The bill also reorients federal funding for transit buses towards electric vehicles by boosting funds for the Low- and No-Emission Vehicle Program five-fold, incentivizing the purchase of electric fleets, and requiring a plan for transitioning to a 100 percent electric bus fleet. This improved program, and other transit reforms, will help transit agencies procure electric and other clean buses, as well as the refueling infrastructure to support them. Transit is already a lower-carbon alternative to driving, and shifting our fleet towards clean buses will make it even more so. Ultimately, all federal funding for bus procurement should go towards low- and no-emission buses, but the significant increase for this program is a good start.

Supports transit with more money and better policy

Too many Americans must drive because they either are not served by transit or only have access to infrequent, unreliable, and inconvenient service. Transit has been underfunded for decades at the federal level despite the significant benefits it provides to communities: reduced emissions, improved economic opportunity, a way out of congestion, cleaner air, mobility choice, better health outcomes, and improved quality of life. Our failure to invest sufficiently in transit has disproportionately impacted low-income people and people of color, who are more likely to rely on transit to access jobs and services.

The House bill gives transit a big increase in overall funding: 47 percent. Equally importantly, however, it changes some policies that have long obstructed transit as a truly viable option in communities. For years, federal transit funding has incentivized lowering operating costs (usually accomplished by offering less or infrequent service) at the expense of building transit that best serves people’s needs. The new bill includes policies that shift those incentives, focusing instead on frequency of service. This will make transit a real option for more people in more communities.

Supports biking and walking with a comprehensive approach to improving safety

Dangerous road conditions pose one of the biggest barriers to taking short trips by walking or biking in many communities, leading to unnecessary driving trips that increase traffic and emissions. Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed 49,340 people walking on streets nationwide, and pedestrian fatalities have risen by 35 percent over the past decade. People of color, older adults and people walking in low-income communities are disproportionately represented in these fatal crashes.

The House proposal takes a comprehensive approach to make walking and biking safer through a combination of increased funding, policy reform, and better provisions to hold states accountable. For example:

The bill requires Complete Street design principles and makes $250 million available for active transportation projects including Complete Streets.
It proposes changes to how speed limits are set to prioritize safety results over a faster auto trip.
It requires states with the highest levels of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities to set aside funds to address those needs.
The bill would also prohibit states from the current practice of setting annual targets for roadway fatalities that are negative—in other words, targets that assume the current trend line of increased fatalities is unstoppable, essentially accepting more fatalities every year as an unavoidable cost.

The House bill isn’t perfect, but is a significant improvement over the Senate’s proposal

While the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s proposal takes many steps in the right direction, it still misses the mark in some areas based on our agenda. It still includes significant funding for highways without the proper restrictions in place to avoid unnecessary buildout of new lane-miles we can’t afford to maintain, and congestion relief is still a primary goal embedded throughout the proposed program. This ultimately prioritizes the same types of transportation investments we have seen for decades.

Yet, the House bill takes significant steps that the Senate EPW bill introduced last year did not. In contrast to the broad, holistic approach the House bill takes to addressing emissions, the Senate bill introduced some new (but relatively weak) stand-alone programs to address emissions, congestion, and other important topics. Importantly, the Senate bill did not make any needed changes to the core federal formula programs, continuing to direct the vast majority of funding into programs that incentivize building high-speed roads and making travel by any means other than driving — and emitting — impossible for most Americans.

Bottom line: the House’s proposal could be a game-changer for climate, equity, and safety goals

The House’s proposal introduces more substantial reforms to our national transportation program than we have seen in years, and many of the changes will directly support reduced emissions, environmental justice, and other important goals. This is a big deal, but the magnitude of the changes may not be readily apparent. Many of the most transformative proposals do not sound like climate initiatives because they do not specifically reference emissions or address electrification. Instead they change funding formulas, policies, and performance measures that, over decades, have produced a transportation system that requires more and longer car trips and greater emissions.

Climate advocates and climate leaders on the Hill should recognize the strides taken with this proposal from Congress and fight to protect those changes in the bill. Advocates for preserving the status quo are preparing to fight these important changes. We need climate advocates to do the same to defend them.

House builds on the FAST Act’s change to provide better and more balanced passenger rail service

Expanding and improving our nation’s passenger rail network to bring better, more reliable passenger rail service to more people is one of the best ways to improve access for millions of Americans in big urban areas and small rural ones alike. The House transportation bill takes some important steps to balance passenger rail with the rest of our transportation investments. Here are the details.

This is the first of a series of deeper dives into specific areas of the House’s transportation reauthorization proposal. Stay tuned for longer looks at repair (and how it can be improved), climate, access, and others. Read our statement on the bill, how it stacks up to our core three principles, and a quick look at nine other things—good and bad—to know.

Within the reauthorization proposal released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week is the Transforming Rail by Accelerating Investment Nationwide Act (TRAIN Act), which lays out ambitious investment priorities and important reforms specifically for the rail component of our national surface transportation reauthorization. The TRAIN Act authorizes an increase in passenger rail funding to five times current levels, for a total of $60 billion total over the next five years. It establishes new programs to help fund capital improvements for existing trains, while making existing programs more effective and usable. In contrast to Congress’s recent attempts to peel off the Northeast Corridor and cancel vital long-distance routes, it re-establishes the centrality of a complete national network of short- and long-distance rail service, including state-supported routes. And it gives Amtrak the legal tools it needs to address bad faith interference from freight carriers.

Capital investment

Passenger rail services often require sizable capital improvements to track, stations, or rolling stock upon startup or on an ongoing basis to keep the service viable. Historically, these hefty expenses have come from Amtrak’s annual appropriation and from states. More recently, beginning with the 2009 Recovery Act, a growing share of passenger rail capital projects have been funded by competitive grant programs administered by the USDOT.

The TRAIN Act authorizes $5.2 billion annually for rail capital improvements which will allow us to make our national passenger train network more reliable, while providing better service and improving the state of good repair across the network. After several years of legislators making attempts to peel off the Northeast Corridor and neglect the National Network, this bill reinforces the balance between them, while also including commuter rail in the capital grant program for the first time. Plus, with an 80 percent federal share for capital grants and a 90 percent share in the new PRIME grant program, local matching dollars will activate more federal investment per dollar than the existing 50-50 split, making rail projects more competitive for local funding when compared to highways that have 90 percent of their costs covered.

Federal loan programs for rail will also become more effective and user friendly by providing funding to offset risk premiums that borrowers must currently pay the government as insurance against possible default.

Operating support

Operating support is key for many new or expanded services. It may not be as flashy as a new station or high speed track, but it helps make tickets affordable and expand the reach of high quality passenger rail across the country.

The bill authorizes the Restoration and Enhancement grant program (REG) program at $20 million annually, a competitive grant program that provides a share of operating support for new or expanded passenger train services. The REG program provides a declining share of operating support to help new and expanded services get established and build a base of riders before transitioning completely to local funds for operating support. As an example, this program is helping the Southern Rail Commission get the new Gulf Coast service restored and established. The grants will enable the three-state commission to offset 80 percent of operating support in the first year of operations with federal funds. In the second and third years, federal funds will cover 60 and 40 percent of operating support respectively. State and local funds will make up the balance during the three-year period.

Shifting trips in a corridor or a city from highways or airports to passenger rail helps reduce emissions, mitigate climate change, and improve air quality. In another important set of changes, funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ) could be used to pay for operating support on transportation networks that improve air quality, including state-supported Amtrak routes. Currently, CMAQ funding can’t be used for passenger rail operating support, and its use for transit is mainly for capital projects and procurement, and limited fare reductions when local air quality is worst.

Amtrak

Amtrak, America’s primary passenger rail operator, was established by Congress to take over passenger operations from the private railroads. Amtrak has received an annual appropriation from Congress every year of its existence for capital and operating expenses, though the adequacy of federal support has often been unreliable or insufficient.

The bill authorizes $5.8 billion annually for Amtrak, roughly triple what Amtrak currently gets today. This includes, on average, $2.6 billion for the route between Washington, DC, and Boston, and $3.25 billion for the rest of the National Network, a portion of which would be used to reduce costs for state-supported trains.

Amtrak’s mission gets some important reforms, to provide reliable national intercity passenger rail service while meeting the needs of all passengers and the national workforce. The bill would also reform the railroad’s board of directors to better reflect Amtrak’s stakeholders. Among the eight presidential appointees, seats would be reserved for mayors and governors from cities along the Northeast Corridor, and the National Network. A seat would be reserved for a representative from Amtrak labor, and two seats would be reserved for members with a history of regular Amtrak ridership and understanding of passenger rail service. This would better align the company’s priorities with the needs of the traveling public, employees, and the communities the trains stop in.

Preference over freight service and a right of access to the freight railroad network was fundamental to Amtrak’s creation. Because it still is critical for its continued viability as a national passenger carrier,, the TRAIN Act empowers Amtrak to seek relief in the federal court system when host railroads delay its trains. When Amtrak seeks to operate new trains, or more trains, over a route owned by a freight railroad, the bill provides a faster process to resolve any disputes between Amtrak and the freight railroad over costs and any disruption to freight service. As an example of how this is necessary, when Amtrak was negotiating with CSX for their right-of-way along the Gulf Coast to restore passenger service there, CSX first came to the table with a dollar figure that was so large as to defy rational explanation.

Many Amtrak trains operate overnight and cover long distances. Access to healthful and quality food is important. The bill ends the current disparity between coach and sleeping car passengers. It requires that Amtrak make all food available to all passengers, regardless of accommodation or ticket class, on long distance trains. The bill would still allow meals to be included in the cost of a sleeping car fare, but ensures other passengers the right to purchase the food that is currently only available to sleeping car passengers. The bill also recognizes that food and beverage service may not make a profit on its own, but contributes to the overall viability of the service, and removes legislative language that had required Amtrak to minimize losses directly associated with food and beverage service on its trains.

These reforms to how our country funds passenger rail improvements and operations, coupled with reforms to Amtrak, will bring a renaissance of passenger train development over the next several years that will pay dividends long into the future.

This post was written by Andrew Justus, Smart Growth America policy associate.

Nine other important things to know about the House’s transportation bill

Last week the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a multi-year transportation bill that starts to connect transportation spending to accomplishing measurable outcomes, including our three core principles. Here are nine other important other things to know about the House’s introductory effort to replace the FAST Act, which expires this December. Most are exciting, but there are two major disappointments.

Read our previous post chronicling how this bill stacks up to our three core principles: prioritize maintenance, design for safety over speed, and connect people to jobs and services.

1) Puts climate change at the center to reduce emissions

Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the country, the vast majority of which is due to personal cars and trucks. This legislation recognizes that reducing this pollution is imperative and requires states to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation system. (A similar requirement from USDOT was rolled back early in the Trump administration.) This requirement to measure and reduce GHG emissions from transportation could be a gamechanger. States that spend in such a way to reduce emissions can be rewarded with increased flexibility. States that fail to reduce emissions will face penalties. This is precisely the kind of holistic approach that the Senate’s proposal is lacking. As we wrote last summer about the Senate bill, “Despite including a climate title for the first time ever—a huge feat for a Republican-led Senate—and a new safety incentive program, the [Senate EPW’s proposal] puts the bulk of its funding into programs that incentivize the building of high-speed roads. This negates the funding for the climate and safety programs because high-speed roads are dangerous by design and increase transportation emissions.”

2) Climate isn’t confined to a single section

There are a handful of other new climate programs proposed by the House to tackle climate change. First, the bill proposes a new Carbon Emissions Reduction program within the highway title to fund projects that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Second, there is also a new Pre-Disaster Mitigation program that funds projects that improve the resilience of existing infrastructure. Third, the proposal includes a new Community Climate Innovation Grant program that will provide $250 million annually to support local projects that reduce emissions.

There are several provisions in the bill seeking to electrify vehicles, including allowing surface transportation funds to be used for vehicle charging infrastructure. The bill also creates the Electric Vehicle Charging and Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure grant program, which would make $350 million per year available to public agencies to build more charging stations for zero emissions vehicles. Finally, the “Low or No Emission” grants program for transit buses and facilities would also be renamed the “Zero Emission Grants” program to reflect a shift in the program. Funding for zero emission bus grants—which will fund the purchase of buses and charging infrastructure, and require a plan to transition to a zero emission fleet—would be increased more than fivefold to $1.7 billion over five years.

3) Builds on the FAST Act’s rail program to provide a better and more balanced passenger rail service

Expanding and improving passenger rail is one of the best ways to improve access for millions of Americans in big urban areas and small rural ones alike. High-speed rail would be nice, but in many areas of the country, rail connections are the only way for some people to travel between smaller towns and cities. We need to improve the entirety of our network and bring better, more reliable passenger rail service to more people. By providing $60 billion in funding for passenger rail over five years, the House starts to balance out rail with the rest of our transportation investments.

Perhaps most notably, in stark contrast to Congress’s recent attempts to peel off the Northeast Corridor and cancel vital long-distance routes, it re-establishes the centrality of a complete national network of short- and long-distance rail service by funding each one in an equal manner. And it gives Amtrak the legal tools it needs to address bad faith interference from freight carriers. As an example of how this is necessary, when Amtrak was negotiating with CSX for their right-of-way along the Gulf Coast to restore passenger service, CSX first came to the table with a dollar figure that was so large as to defy rational explanation.

4) More money for transit with a policy shift to quality service for more people

Transit gets a big boost in overall funding (47 percent) with this bill (as does highways at 42 percent, unfortunately), but the real star here is the change in policy. For years, federal funding for transit has incentivized lowering operating costs—where can transit be built the most cheaply, how can it be run for the least cost, etc.—instead of building transit that is most useful to people. But no one ever chose to ride transit because its construction costs were low—frequent service and reliability are what people care about. The INVEST Act flips these incentives to focus on frequency of service that will encourage more people to choose to ride.

There are also major reforms to the program used to build and expand transit (Capital Investment Grants), like directing the federal government to cover a larger share of the costs—as we have long done for highways—and doubling the program’s historically limited funding to about $4.5 billion per year on average. And a new federal transit-oriented development office will help coordinate transit and housing investments to create more walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods around the country.

5) A year for transition and some emergency support, though not what transit needs over the next year

The House recognizes that we are in the midst of a crisis with this pandemic; so for the first year, 100 percent of all new funding would go toward emergency programs. For transit, that means $5.7 billion. The House deserves credit for recognizing that we need emergency assistance for our unique circumstances, but transit will need far more than this bill provides. Most of that need will have to be addressed outside of a reauthorization bill since it is possible, even likely, that a reauthorization package will not become law for a year. House leaders are likely planning to address pandemic recovery elsewhere, but it is good to remember that this funding, along with the funding from the passed CARES Act and the proposed HEROES Act, still falls short of what is needed to keep transit running through fiscal year 2021.

6) Connects housing and transportation

This is a transportation bill, but it takes seriously the powerful impact of transportation policy on housing and vice versa. We must provide more attainable housing in places where people can drive less and walk or take transit more. This proposal attempts to address this by providing a large boost in transit funding. But it is also essential to incentivize cities and developers to build more affordable housing near transit.

The House proposal calls for the creation of a new Office of Transit-Supportive Communities within the Federal Transit Administration to coordinate transit and housing projects within the USDOT and across the federal government. This office would be empowered to provide new Transit Oriented Development Planning grants to state and local governments who are designing or building new high-frequency transit. These grants would support efforts to enhance economic development and ridership by facilitating multimodal connections, increasing pedestrian and bicyclist access, and enabling mixed-use development. The grants can pay up to 80 percent of the cost, but projects that include an affordable housing component can go up to 90 percent.

The office would also offer technical assistance with transit-oriented development, including siting, planning, and financing projects. The technical assistance could also support housing feasibility assessments, ridership promotion, applying for relevant federal funding, value capture, and model contracts. All assistance must include strategies to improve equity and serve underrepresented communities.

These are important provisions, though it would be helpful and important to have states and MPOs measure how well they are performing in providing affordable housing in areas that have affordable transportation. A good way to do this would be to create a new federal performance measure for combined housing and transportation costs with 45 percent of household expenses as the target upper threshold.

7) A few other exciting new programs

There is congestion pricing provision that allows the conversion of non-tolled lanes to variable tolling lanes if the Secretary finds that the “toll facility and the planned investments to improve public transportation or other non-tolled alternatives in the corridor are reasonably expected to improve the operation of the cordon or corridor.” The planning for such a conversion must include consideration of air quality, environmental justice and equity, freight movement and economic impacts. Further, the operator must report on the impact of the program on congestion. Wouldn’t it be nice if state DOTs had to do that on regular highway expansions?
This bill creates a new $600 million competitive program akin the TIGER/BUILD program to fund local and tribal governments, MPOs, transit agencies for projects that improve safety, state of good repair, access to jobs and services, and GHG emissions. The Secretary of Transportation will have to create a transparent new system for objectively evaluating projects and developing a rating system to compare the benefits and costs of each application, using these metrics above. And only the highest scoring projects would be eligible for grants, which can be up to $25 million.
The bill proposes a new $250 million program to provide direct funding to “high-performing” MPOs for locally-selected projects. Awarded amounts would vary from a minimum of $10 and a maximum of $50 million. High-performing MPOs would be determined based on the financial, legal and technical capacity of the MPO; its coordination with the state DOT, transit agencies, and other MPOs in the metropolitan area; and its management of the planning program and past competitive grants.

8) The issue no one has taken on yet: the 80-20 split

Why are we still propping up the 80-20 split of highway and transit dollars? It budges with this legislation, but only a little to 77-23 or so. As T4America Director Beth Osborne said on Twitter, “It is amazing that with such a disproportionate boost [in overall funding], transit just barely makes it to 20% of the funding. It shows what a lift real change is. How are we 38 years past the 80-20 deal and still so subjugated by it?”

If Congress is able to fund this bill, it’ll happen with a sizable amount of general taxpayer funds, not gas taxes. So taking care of the user isn’t the reason for sticking with the old funding pattern. Also, the United States spent decades building out a highway system: will this country ever put the same energy into another surface mode?

For no good reason at all, we are still spending money on highways like we’re just starting out, way back in 1956. This is no longer the Eisenhower highway program, but this bill proposes to add almost 100 billion additional dollars to the pot for highways as if it was. Congress declared the interstate system complete decades ago, but you wouldn’t know it by the funding. Even though this bill proposes to spend that money far better, the level of spending is a sign that we still haven’t successfully transitioned into managing the system we built. That urgently needs to change.

9) Congestion as the goal of the program still reigns supreme

Congestion relief has always been the underlying goal of the program whether written or not. And it always means congestion relief through building and expanding highways, even though it never, ever works and usually makes congestion worse. (See The Congestion Con report for the proof.)

If Congress enacts an access measure, we hope they consider removing the congestion relief measure since improving access includes improving access by car through congestion relief. A more insidious issue is the ever powerful, unwritten standard that dominates the program called “Level of Service”—a measure of how fluidly cars are traveling. A road is rated an A through an F; an F is failing even though it may very well be the most economically productive corridor. “Level of service” is simultaneously required nowhere but no one is allowed to design a transportation project without it. It is probably time for Congress to tackle this issue in the law if they want to truly exert authority over this program and focus it on a broader array of priorities.

How well does the House’s new transportation bill advance T4America’s core principles?

Update, June 29: This bill passed the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) and will be voted on in the House of Representatives this week. A bipartisan amendment to fix the issues with the bill’s repair provisions was accepted by unanimous consent in the House (T&I) Committee. It’s our pleasure to change our scorecard below from 2/3 to a 3/3. We thank Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García, and Rep. Mike Gallagher for their tremendous support and leadership on this specific issue.

Federal transportation policy is in desperate need of an overhaul. This week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a bill that makes substantial changes to connect the program to outcomes that Americans value. Here’s more on how the House bill starts to redirect transportation policy toward maintaining the current system, protecting the safety of people on the roads, and getting people to jobs, schools, groceries and health care.

You can read our full statement about the bill here.

1) Takes steps to prioritize maintenance across the board

Prioritize maintenance is the first of our three simple core principles for federal investment in transportation. (Read more about all three here.) This bill doesn’t go as far as our specific call to cut the road, bridge, and transit maintenance backlog in half by dedicating formula dollars for maintenance, but it does push transportation agencies to prioritize maintenance in other concrete ways. Everyone in Congress talks nonstop about raising new money to “repair our crumbling roads and bridges,” and then they never make the requisite policy changes to guarantee it’ll ever happen. With this bill, the walk is starting to line up with the talk.

We should note that the overall highway funding in this bill is indeed growing overall, but we hope the language included in this proposal would lead to that money being spent in a different way. For one, 20 percent of the two biggest sources of state DOT highway funds are dedicated to bridge repair.¹ For another, states will have to demonstrate three things before they can add new capacity with funds from the National Highway Performance Program, the largest highway program.² DOTs would have to 1) demonstrate they are making progress on repair, 2) consider operational improvements and transit and show that expanding roadway capacity is more cost-effective than either, and 3) demonstrate that the expansion project would meet another performance target, like congestion reduction. This is a good step; however, this will only work if it’s matched with a strong standard to determine what defines “progress on repair” as well as a requirement that DOTs base their decisions and cost-effectiveness calculation on transportation models with a strong history of accuracy—and most currently do not.

Additionally, even if they fulfill these conditions above to add new capacity, there’s no language requiring the project sponsor to prove they can maintain the asset they are building, like we require transit project sponsors to do. That’s a big miss.

On the transit side, a new $600 million program is intended only for local transit projects which improve state of good repair (or other vital performance measures like emissions reduction, safety, or access.) There’s also a new formula program for keeping transit buses up to date that will always prioritize the agencies with the oldest buses, creating a rolling funding increase targeting the oldest buses as we try to modernize the nation’s transit fleet.

2) Institutes a comprehensive approach to safety

Designing for safety over speed is our second principle, with a call to save lives with road designs that support and encourage safer, slower driving. The conventional approach to designing highways—wide lanes and wide roads to allow for high speeds—has resulted in an epidemic of death on our nation’s roads and the highest number of people being struck and killed while walking and biking in three decades—disproportionately killing Black Americans and people in other communities of color. In this bill, safety goes from a talking point to action, focusing on making our roads safe for everyone and providing the money and standards for transportation agencies to build Complete Streets.

For starters, this proposal would take away the ability of state DOTs to set negative annual targets for safety. In other words, they can’t set a target for more people to die on their roads next year. Last year the National Complete Streets Coalition pointed out that not only were more people walking and biking being struck and killed by drivers in many states and they were 7 times more likely to be people of color, but many of those states were setting “safety targets” that assumed more people would die and there was nothing they could or would do to stem the tide. (Many “succeeded.”) The House bill should push those states to realize that there are things they can and must do in the design of their roadways to improve safety.

The proposal also dedicates more funding to protect the most vulnerable users and make communities more welcoming to pedestrians and bicyclists. This includes: 1) requiring states with the highest levels of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities to set aside funds to address those safety needs;³ 2) increasing Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) funds by 60 percent from $850 million per year to an estimated $1.5 billion per year (which typically funds biking and walking projects); and 3) preventing states from transferring any of those TAP funds to other programs unless they make funds available to local governments who could identify no suitable projects. In a typical year, states transfer $150 million from this small program into the much larger highway programs.

There are also several provisions to embed safety into the planning and standards of transportation agencies. The bill would require FHWA to update its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) to require speed limits to be set with a consideration of the community surrounding the corridor, the number of bicyclists and pedestrians, and crash statistics (as opposed to just traffic conditions). Right now, speed limits are set by how people behave; so if you build a wide street and people drive too fast, the speed limit is often raised to accommodate the rule breakers. States would also be allowed to use various funds to create plans for Complete Streets and Vision Zero plans—an effort to completely eliminate traffic fatalities, in part through street design. Finally, the bill would require each state to conduct a vulnerable road user safety assessment as part of its strategic highway safety plan.

This bill is markedly different than its predecessors and if enacted it will most certainly create a safer transportation system and save lives.

3) States and metro area planners must determine how well their system connects people to jobs—drivers and non-drivers alike

Our third principle is measuring transportation success by how many jobs and services people can access, not how fast cars can drive on specific segments of road, as our current program does. If the goal of transportation spending is to connect people to jobs and services, then that must be measured and considered when funding decisions are made.

Access to technology like GIS and cloud computing allows us to now measure travel by all modes from residential areas to jobs and services. With this information, we can consider all kinds of transportation projects and all transportation users equally. We can also see when it is more cost-efficient to build the things people need closer to them, rather than defaulting to building more transportation projects to make far away necessities less inconvenient to travel to.

This is where this bill most hits the mark. For the first time at the national level, recipients of federal transportation funding will be required to measure how well their system connects people to the things they need, whether they drive, take transit, walk or bike. Right now, the program assumes if vehicle traffic is moving that trips are easy and access is high. This ignores those who can’t or don’t drive, which are much more likely to be those who are low-income, people of color, or those who are mobility-impaired. Under the House bill, state DOTs and MPOs must consider whether people traveling (not just driving) can reach jobs, schools, groceries, medical care and other necessities. And they will be penalized if they fail to use federal funding to improve that access.

Additionally, the House proposal creates an Office of Transit-Supportive Communities within the Federal Transit Administration to provide funding, technical assistance, and coordination of transit and housing projects within the USDOT and across the federal government. Putting housing (and especially attainable housing) close to transit is a powerful way to increase access to jobs and necessities. Further, this proposal adds affordable housing into the planning considerations for MPO and state DOT Transportation Improvement Programs, as well as for future transit capital grants. Through this legislation, the House authors recognize the connection between transportation, housing and development and propose bringing them together in federal policy and investments.

The score:

The INVEST Act checks two of the three boxes in our scorecard, but especially access and safety where the authors showed real comprehension of the problems and innovation on the solutions. On repair, the final verdict will be decided in the regulatory work that is done by USDOT, which is not ideal. We strongly recommend that the House strengthen their language on repair to ensure that we don’t end up with a much larger overall program with the same problem as before: neglected maintenance needs while states find creative ways to continue building things they can’t afford to maintain. On the whole, we’re glad to see the House move the program in a new direction, which is a vast improvement over the current proposal from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which got an “F” for their costly status quo approach.

Learn more: Read our follow-up post that delves into nine other (mostly positive) things to note about this bill.

House bill charts a course for updating country’s outdated transportation policy

The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I) in the U.S. House released a draft proposal for long-term surface transportation policy today that would replace the existing FAST Act, which expires this year. The INVEST (Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation) in America Act takes a markedly different approach to transportation policy that would begin to put outcomes—instead of price tags—at the center of our decision making.

WASHINGTON, DC — “Past reauthorizations have been an exercise in spending more money and magically wishing for better outcomes with outdated policy, which was always foolish,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “With this new proposal from Chairman DeFazio, the INVEST in America Act, the House is charting a welcome course toward updating our country’s 1950’s approach to transportation.”

“The typical fixation on the price tag has prevented us from realizing a path forward. First propose a new set of policies for accomplishing some key goals—fix it first, safety over speed, and improving access to jobs and services—and then rally people to pay for that vision. The House is proposing significant changes to the core highway program by requiring states to prioritize road and bridge repair (and setting money aside for that purpose), measure and reduce greenhouse gases, improve access to jobs and opportunity with every dollar spent, and make safety—for everyone—paramount. Many of the changes made on the transit side are also oriented around improving access, like incentivizing transit agencies to increase frequency rather than merely reducing operating costs, which can help provide better service where it’s needed most, rather than just adding service in places where it’s the most cost-effective,” said Osborne.

“The safety of everyone using our transportation system should always have been the number one priority for the dollars that we spend, but we have utterly failed with America reaching the highest number of pedestrians struck and killed by vehicles in three decades,” said Emiko Atherton, director of the National Complete Streets Coalition. “Thanks to the hard work of Rep. Cohen who introduced the Complete Streets Act and saw many of those ideas incorporated here, safety will once again be paramount.”

“This is a transportation bill, but the committee is to be commended for also recognizing the inextricable connections to land use, specifically affordable housing,” said Christopher Coes, vice president of land use and development at Smart Growth America. “We’ll never be able to realize our climate goals or an equitable economic recovery without also providing more attainable housing in places where people can drive less and walk or take transit more. This bill takes some important steps forward by moving to integrate housing and land use into existing transportation planning and creating a new federal office to coordinate these plans equitably. But more is needed, including new standards to reduce overall housing plus transportation costs, which are often far out of reach for many Americans.”

“Let’s hope some of the leaders in the Senate take a look and transfer their enthusiasm to this more ambitious approach, instead of their expensive proposal to nibble around the edges of a broken status quo,” concluded Osborne.

###

Transportation for America, the National Complete Streets Coalition are all programs of Smart Growth America. Smart Growth America envisions a country where no matter where you live, or who you are, you can enjoy living in a place that is healthy, prosperous, and resilient. We empower communities through technical assistance, advocacy, and thought leadership to realize our vision of livable places, healthy people, and shared prosperity. www.smartgrowthamerica.org

What do we do next? COVID-19 and the triple helix model of innovation

This blog is part of a special series on curb management and COVID-19. A joint effort of International Parking and Mobility Institute, Transportation for America, and Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Complete Streets Council, this series strives to document the immediate curbside-related actions and responses to COVID-19, as well as create a knowledge base of strategies that communities can use to manage the curbside during future emergencies.

By David C. Lipscomb

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, jurisdictions around the world are preparing to shift from emergency response to recovery with forward-thinking sustainability in mind. The status quo is untenable, meaning innovation will be essential to restoring our way of life.

Enter the triple helix model of innovation which describes the relationship between academia, industry, and government as it pertains to social and economic development. At the model’s core, academia supplies education and research, governments fund or influence educational priorities and regulate industries, while industry provides jobs, infrastructure, and taxes, though these are not rigidly set roles.

Where the triple helix may be most evident is how federal and state COVID-19 response guidelines affected government operations, educational institutions, and businesses. The trickle-down effect has led to ever-evolving resource collaborations and emergency changes to curbside operations and mobility management.

New York University (NYU)’s C2SMART produced an invaluable tool for municipal responders: an interactive dashboard and white paper on the impact of COVID-19 on transportation in the New York metropolitan area. NYU students also learned how to use modeling techniques to predict the effects of pandemics on transportation systems. Their findings give key insight into mode shifts likely to shape future policy.

Retailers will have a key role in innovation as they adapt to consumer trends. Adobe Analytics data showed a 208 percent increase in curbside pickup during the first three weeks of April. Many jurisdictions face questions about the necessity and sustainability of curbside management strategies to facilitate on-demand delivery services like Uber Eats, GrubHub, Postmates, and DoorDash, which generate about $82 billion and are projected to more than double by 2025. These trends have started to influence government policy and operations with Seattle announcing in May the rollout of curbside pick-up zones for retailers. Future considerations of infrastructure or operations that limit personal contact or facilitate quick curbside access will depend on clear communication of needs.

In the technology world, Apple and Google are working on contact tracing technology that would integrate with government health agency apps. The apps would alert users when they come into contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19, though challenges around privacy, data integrity, and participation remain. Still, successful implementation of this technology could empower users or transportation systems managers to make better real-time transportation decisions based on risk.

The Triple Helix Association is calling for papers on innovation in pandemic and societal crisis response; transportation will be an integral part.

What innovation looks like going forward remains to be seen, but opportunity abounds. For example, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) hosts an internship program in conjunction with the Howard University Transportation Research Center. These students play a critical role in expanding the DDOT’s work capacity (including now as we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic). In turn they gain real-world experience to boost their careers in the public, private, or academic sectors.

These are a few examples of how governments, academia, and private industry are jointly responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. If you’re aware of other examples, please share it with david.lipscomb@dc.gov.

David C. Lipscomb is curbside management planner for the District Department of Transportation in Washington, DC.