Skip to main content

A key policy change will help local communities give their residents better access to transportation jobs

For more than 40 years, federal policies have prevented local residents from benefiting from the well-paying jobs that come with federally funded transportation projects. The USDOT just made a move to change that with a new pilot program.

Los Angeles transit construction

Longstanding federal statutes have prevented the localities receiving federal transportation grants from giving any preference to bidders who hire local residents, leaving a city or region without a legal way to ensure that a project boosts local employment by hiring qualified residents to do the work.

In early March, the USDOT took an important first step to change that, however. The agency is launching a one-year pilot program called Local Hire ”to evaluate the use of these requirements and determine their impact.”

Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx announced that after a recent Department of Justice clarification of federal bidding statutes, the U.S. Department of Transportation would now allow local recipients to use contracting requirements, including local hiring, so long as those requirements do not unduly restrict competition.

“Under this program, recipients of highway and transit grants will be allowed to use hiring programs in which preference is given to local residents, low-income workers, and veterans,” wrote Foxx. The DOT is requesting comments on this proposed rule for the pilot program by April 6th.

Evaluating bids with hiring requirements is a typical practice in many places for projects funded with local or state dollars. But regulations governing federal dollars had prohibited the practice, citing concerns that it could undermine competition and drive up costs.

The advocates who have long argued that federal transportation spending needs to better benefit everyone called it a groundbreaking move.

“Research has shown that low-income workers and communities of color are vastly under-represented in jobs in the transportation sector,” wrote PolicyLink’s Anita Hairston. “This is a missed opportunity for connecting these communities to quality jobs, especially given the good wages and benefits that often accompany transportation work.”

Allowing a preference for hiring local workers is about giving states and local communities the power to ensure that qualified locals are first in line for jobs instead of seeing those jobs go to residents from elsewhere. This would help provide a one-two punch for economic development: good jobs for the local residents who most need them, and the long-term benefits of a new transportation investment.

This is a great step in the right direction, and we look forward to the results from the Local Hire pilot program.

You can send your comments to the USDOT by April 6 here.

States continue to take action to solve transportation funding crises

https://flic.kr/p/FFvy6

This year started with a transportation bang for many states across the country. In the last few weeks, four states in particular have made major strides in funding transportation and infrastructure projects as gas prices continue to remain low.

Georgia transportation officials have said they are facing an annual, billion-dollar funding gap to maintain their existing roads and bridges in good condition.Last week, the Georgia House passed HB 170which would make a few notable changes to their current funding structure, where they currently use both a sales tax and a per-gallon excise tax on gasoline. HB 170 would remove the current sales tax on gasoline entirely and increase the current 8.2 cents per-gallon rate by 21 cents for a new rate of 29.2 cents per gallon. The bill also requires the rate be adjusted annually to adapt to growing vehicle fuel efficiency and inflation in the cost of highway construction.

Besides the excise tax, the legislation would also impose new fees on private electric cars and commercial electric vehicles. The bill has been sent on to the state Senate.

In North Carolina, where gas tax rates are pegged to fuel prices, the House and Senate are moving competing bills to address an expected multi-million dollar shortfall resulting from cheaper gas and growing efficiency.

The Senate’s version, SB 20, eventually would raise the floor for the sinking gas tax from 21 cents per gallon to 35 cents per gallon, and increase the percentage rate on fuel from 7 percent to 9.9 percent. But it actually would cut the fuel tax by 2.5-cents per gallon between now and December. This would reduce transportation funding by $33 million between now and July, but is expected to raise an additional $237 million next year and $352 million a year by 2018.

Last week, the House passed a version of this bill that would reduce the current rate of 37.5 cents a gallon to 36 cents and hold it at that rate until the end of 2015. Delaying an expected drop in the adjustable, percentage gas tax rate (a consequence of falling gas prices) would bring in an additional $142 million during the next fiscal year (or approximately half of the Senate’s version).

In Utah, the Senate acted Monday to raise gas taxes for the first time in 18 years, increasing it by 5 cents per gallon this year, with an additional penny added each of the next four years. The state is currently looking at a deficit of $11 billion over the next two decades if the legislature does not act now. Consideration of the plan now moves to the House, where leaders are considering a slightly different approach.

Coming off a bold call to action in Governor Jay Inslee’s State of the State speech, Washington’s Senate on March 2 passed a $15 billion transportation package paid for by raising gasoline taxes by 11.7 cents over the next three years. It also would allow certain localities, including Seattle, to ask their voters for additional transit funding in the coming years.

Iowa, in the meantime, already has passed and enacted a transportation revenue package. Strongly supported by Governor Terry Branstad, the bill increases Iowa’s state gas tax by 10 cents per gallon. New funds will go entirely to highway projects, as required by a restrictive state constitutional requirement in place in Iowa and dozens of other states.

Watch this space for a more in-depth look into how business community and other supporters, along with legislative leaders, helped move the package to passage.

After years of depressed revenues and growing needs, states are making big moves on transportation this year. Whether or not they have long-term economic payoff will hinge on the degree to which their cities and towns get the resources and latitude they need to compete in the 21st century.

Make sure to check back with our resource that tracks state transportation funding for the latest updates; you can also sign up to receive the latest news and updates.

West coast port closures example of the worst case scenario

The eight-month labor dispute that left fully loaded container ships anchored off the west coast for weeks caused an “epicback-up that underscored just how critical the smooth movement of freight is to the nation’s economy.

An apparent settlement between port operators and unions representing 20,000 dockworkers has begun to untie the knot, but effects are likely to be felt for some time.

The slowdown has had a profound impact on agriculture, retail, technology, and myriad of other industries whose products ship through the 29 ports on the west coast. The trans-Pacific maritime trade came to a virtual halt during that period.

“Factories are shutting down due to non-delivery of component parts; citrus growers, nut exporters and beef exporters are getting slaughtered on the export side; and truckers are wasting endless hours as they await permission to retrieve cargo,” reported The Hill.

The shutdowns also had a sizable impact on the rail, air and trucking operations that distribute freight from ports to the rest of us, who now are straining under the sudden onslaught of goods. At full productivity, thousands of trucks a day carry off 40 percent of the country’s container cargo, starting the “first-mile” of transporting goods through an extensive highway and rail network.

The slowdown raised the profile of first-mile connections, but poor “last-mile” connections can have similar impacts: It currently takes nearly as long for freight to travel across the city of Chicago as it does to reach Chicago from Los Angeles. Much of that delay has to do with the conflicts between commuter traffic and freight movement. It lacks the headline-grabbing impact of a photo of dozens of container ships anchored in the background of an L.A. beach scene, but it’s an ongoing and damaging situation.

Today, we have no national comprehensive freight policy to pick the smartest investments — regardless of mode — to best move goods from Point A to Point B. As we stumble closer to MAP-21’s expiration date in May, we have an opportunity to change the way we depend on just a few means of transport.

Lawmakers need to ensure the capacity for long-haul routes, especially where they collide with population centers. Some metro regions are working to address this by giving residents other travel options to clear space for freight, but they need more federal resources to do the job. We need to direct both policies and resources toward addressing the costly and time-consuming bottlenecks in connecting the ships to the ports and the ports to the rail and truck yards. This can be achieved by targeting funding through competitive grant programs that ensure all appropriate modes are eligible as well as projects that relieve these bottlenecks and improve both first- and last-mile connections.

MAP-21’s reauthorization should also incentivize and support regional planning for freight movement, to ensure that these bottlenecks no longer threaten our economy.

Rep. Shuster and Sec. Foxx address the importance of local control in today’s Twitter town hall

The chairman of a key House transportation committee and the nation’s transportation secretary today held a “Twitter town hall”, and what rose to the top? Among other things, local access to the federal resources that too often fail to trickle down to them.

Shuster Foxx Twitter town hall 2

Rep. Bill Shuster (D-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx took tweeted questions (hashtag #StuckInTraffic) for about an hour after Fox appeared at a committee hearing on the next transportation bill.

Representative Rodney Davis (R-IL) kicked things off with a question that gets at the heart of the issue many have with the federal transportation program: How do we get more money in the hands of communities to address the local issues taxpayers care most about?

Admittedly, the question was somewhat rhetorical. Rep. Davis is a key champion — along with Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) – of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, , which would give local communities greater access to federal transportation funds to invest in their homegrown transportation plans and projects.

Without endorsing the bill per se, Chairman Shuster (R-PA) implied that he also wants to see local communities get access to the resources they need; from the money they pay into the federal program:

During the earlier hearing, Rep. Davis brought up the importance of local officials having control over decisions of their communities while asking questions of Secretary Foxx.

“I had a lot of input from my local officials, and they want more local control. They want a dedicated funding source for more local projects, so that they can work together with our federal officials. And with that more local control of transportation dollars is a top priority of mine. And in the new highway bill where do you see local communities to share in funding?”

The current federal program doesn’t always work for local communities. Local governments are too often at the mercy of decisions being by the state, made far from where they live. The Davis-Titus proposal would bring the federal program closer to the people by allowing local governments more decision-making power and greater access to resources.

Secretary Foxx noted that the overwhelming popularity of the TIGER program is another signal that the federal program should do more for these places.

I think this one of the reasons why having a strong, robust TIGER program continue is very important, because that has been an area where local communities have had the ability to reach for federal funding directly and get it. As you well know, local communities are becoming very creative when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done. We should continue to encourage that experimentation.

While states and local communities are “very creative when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done,” they shouldn’t have to be. Last year, applicants for TIGER requested 15 times the $600 million available for the program, or a total $9 billion for needed transportation projects.

Without passing legislation like the bipartisan Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, these problems are only just going to get worse. We’re hoping that Rep. Shuster and Sec. Foxx heard that message loud and clear today.

TODAY at 12 p.m. EST: Tweet your thoughts to Secretary Foxx and Chairman Shuster

As we inch closer to MAP-21’s expiration date and the insolvency of the nation’s transportation trust fund, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is partnering with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) to host a Twitter “Town Hall” today at 12 p.m. EST to hear from the public on the issue.

You can participate by following along using the hashtag #StuckInTraffic and by following Secretary Anthony Foxx (@SecretaryFoxx), Rep. Shuster (@Transport), and Transportation for America (@T4America) on Twitter.

This is a great chance to pepper these two influential leaders with some smart questions on the future of the country’s transportation program. While Rome wasn’t built in a day, we know that hearing a few recurring themes for an hour today will definitely have an impact.

So help us fill their timelines with smart questions. While you certainly should ask anything you like, would you consider amplifying a consistent theme by tweeting some of these sample messages we’ve created?

Both of these leaders have made it clear they want a long-term transportation bill with stable funding, but the time is now to start talking about smarter policies for spending those dollars.. Stay tuned with us at @T4America to follow along today.

Lessons from recent successes: Winning State Funding for Transportation

Growing again after a long economic slump that left a huge backlog of unmet needs, a dozen or more states are moving now to raise revenue for transportation. What can they learn from the other states that acted in the last year or two? Our new report, out today, draws out seven key lessons.

Transportation for America has closely followed these efforts in state legislatures to put transportation funding on sound footing and today we are releasing Winning State Funding for Transportation: Lessons from Recent Successes. This short report highlights some of the big-picture keys to success gleaned from those states, with an in-depth look at successful campaigns in Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wyoming, and Vermont.

States face an increasing challenge in funding their mounting transportation needs. Their primary sources of revenue — taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — haven’t kept up with needs as vehicles become more efficient, per-person driving mileage declines, and construction costs rise along with inflation.

Though the financial picture varies from state to state, this is a pressing issue from coast to coast. Twenty-four states have gone a decade or more without raising their gas taxes. Aging infrastructure is in need of desperate repair and the demands coming from demographic and economic changes mean states need more revenue, not less.

Since 2012, 12 states have responded to that challenge by enacting new revenue sources for transportation, while dozens more have considered such legislation. And the list of states taking up this issue right now during 2015 legislative sessions is just as long.

It is important to note that all of the states that have acted thus far, and those working to do so this year or beyond are doing so in expectation of ongoing federal support.

One key lesson worth noting up front: Legislators who supported such moves have met with little to no pushback at the polls. In fact, a Transportation for America analysis of the most recent election cycle found that 98 percent of the supportive lawmakers up for re-election won the primary following their vote – and we found no evidence that any lost as a direct result of their vote.

So far this year, nine governors spanning from Washington to Connecticut, representing both parties, have stepped out in favor of raising transportation revenue publicly in their State of the State addresses. Their leadership follows a trend of bucking the conventional wisdom and supporting new revenue to invest in transportation.

The strategies and examples discussed in this report are intended to be a helpful guide for those emerging leaders as they navigate the unique context of their own individual states to pass transportation revenue legislation, and in turn, set an example for others to follow in the future

Read or download the report today. Visit our home for information on states attempting or succeeding at passing new funding legislation, and sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

Governors step out in favor of raising transportation revenue

States across the country are facing huge deficits in their own transportation budgets — a problem compounded by the uncertainty over the support they’ve always received from the federal transportation fund, which is now just months away from insolvency. However, over the last month or so, at least nine governors have highlighted plans to raise new state transportation revenues in their State of the State addresses, marking the issue as a top priority.

NEWSLETTER - Governor State of the State on revenueWhile their speeches are notable for their willingness to take a stand on the issue, these governors (and many state legislators) are stepping out on the issue because states face growing needs and static or falling revenues from state as well as federal sources.

As of press time, six Republicans and three Democrats spanning from Washington to Connecticut have come out in support of raising transportation funding at the state level by various mechanisms in the hopes of providing stable and reliable revenue for years to come. And they’re counting on Congress to do their part and come through with reliable federal funding as well.

After looking over the transcripts of all nine speeches, two major themes stood out: the importance to a state’s economic growth and development of a well-run, well-funded transportation system, and the financial and public safety cost of poorly maintained infrastructure.

After campaigning on the issue, returning Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) introduced his plan for a 30-year overhaul of the state’s entire transportation system, including the creation of a “transportation lockbox” to ensure transportation revenues are spent on transportation projects. He has promised to propose specific revenue mechanisms in his February 18th budget address.

“We know that transportation and economic growth are bound together,” Governor Dayton said on January 7th. “States that make long term investments in their infrastructure can have vibrant economies for generations. States that don’t, will struggle. It’s that simple.

Transportation connects us – literally – community to community, state to state, nation to nation. It connects us economic opportunity, and it connects us to another.”

Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) proposed raising transportation fees to help address the state’s ever increasing number of deficient bridges and poorly maintained highways, suggesting that spending some now will save more in the future. While calling for greater investments for transportation and infrastructure in his speech, he did not address any specific plans to do so, only saying to his fellow legislative colleagues, “I am not going to stand here and tell you how to swallow this elephant.”

“I fully understand the misgivings of some about higher transportation costs. But there is something to be said for the old adage about being ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ In fact, every dollar we invest now in our roads and bridges will save motorists and taxpayers $6 to $14 later.”

In Iowa, with 35 percent of their annual transportation budget coming from the 19 cents per gallon gas tax, Republican Governor Terry Branstad is concerned about the state’s ability to adequately build and maintain the state’s infrastructure and transportation system with that source. The governor did say before his State of the State address that part of the solution could be allowing local governments to add their own gas tax for local projects and transportation needs. He expressed hope that lawmakers and stakeholders could come to a consensus on a specific solution.

“Over the past few years, rhetoric has trumped results when it comes to action on infrastructure funding for Iowa. A recently completed Battelle study demonstrates the need for us to take a hard look at adequate road funding. The study shows that without action funding available for road and bridge maintenance will fall short of what is needed to remain competitive and most importantly, safe.

Without action, Iowa’s roads and bridges face an uncertain future. Our farmers will find it more difficult to deliver their commodities to market. Business and industry will look elsewhere when considering where to invest and grow. As the study found, sound infrastructure remains a prerequisite for economic development. “

While Democratic Minnesota Mayor Mark Dayton has yet to give his State of the State address, his administration did release the details of his $11 billion transportation funding plan this week. It implements a 6.5 percent gross receipts tax on gasoline, raises the current 1.25 percent base on vehicle registration fees to 1.5 percent, and increases the sales tax by a half cent in the Twin Cities Metro area, specifically for improved transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure.

“Inadequate transportation clogs our lives with worse traffic congestion, longer commutes, more dangerous travel conditions. Those deficiencies restrict our future economic growth and detract from our quality of life,” said Governor Dayton. “If we continue to avoid these problems, they will only get worse. It’s time to begin to solve them.”

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) called for a 10-cent gas tax increase, as long as the legislation included cutting the state’s income tax by 30 percent and restructuring the state’s Department of Transportation.

“Deficient roads and highways are an economic issue. That’s why we supported $1 billion in new road funds last year, which was the biggest infrastructure investment in a generation. It’s why we proposed in our Executive Budget dedicating an additional $61 million in auto sales tax funds entirely to roads. But we know that’s not enough. We still have very substantial revenue needs that need to be addressed.”

Republican South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard outlined his transportation plan that would raise the vehicle excise tax from three to four percent, and increase the motor fuel tax by two cents this year and an additional two cents every year going forward. His plan would also implement a 10 percent increase in vehicle registration fees for local entities. The plan would allow the state to invest $50.5 million more for roads and bridges, with $39.8 million for the state highway fund, and an additional $10.7 million for local towns and cities.

“Our entire economy – our very wellbeing – depends on road infrastructure,” Governor Daugaard said during his State of the State Address. “And right now, our roads are underfunded.”

Addresses from the governors in Georgia, Michigan, and Washington focused on the need to raise revenue because current conditions represent public safety issues — or could soon without adequate investment.

The Republican governor from Georgia, Nathan Deal, has suggested that his state needs an estimated $1 billion to $1.5 billion more to maintain the state’s roads, highways, and bridges — and even millions more to expand. He offered the legislature three options to raise the funding needed to maintain the state’s infrastructure: a regional one percent sales tax designated for infrastructure projects; a plan that will reprioritize funding and focus on the most essential projects; or a “transportation plan that would address the ongoing needs of maintenance and repair, as well as freight corridor and other transportation improvements.”

“We are currently operating at a rate that requires 50 years to resurface every state road in Georgia. If your road is paved when you graduate high school, by the time it is paved again you will be eligible for Social Security.

If we continue to do nothing, we would continue to have to depend on the federal government, whose transportation funds are also dwindling. If we should choose not to maintain and improve our infrastructure, economic development would stall, companies would be unable to conduct their business efficiently, commuters would waste more time and gas sitting in traffic, and no one would be satisfied.”

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed a plan to raise $1.3 billion more a year to mend deteriorating roads and other transportation infrastructure, contingent on Michigan voters increasing the state sales tax to seven percent via a May ballot measure. This bipartisan package of 11 laws would restructure and ultimately raise static per-gallon fuel taxes while exempting fuel from the state’s 6 percent sales tax.

“The key issue is public safety. If you look at it and you look at our bridges, one out of nine is structurally deficient. So, when you drive Michigan and you see plywood underneath the bridge, why is it there? It’s keeping crumbling concrete from falling on your vehicle, that’s unacceptable.

When you talk about our roads and you see those potholes, just think about the issues and concerns you’ve had this personally. When you swerve to miss a pothole, you are a distracted driver. You are putting yourself at risk and other drivers and other people. If you hit that pothole and you blow a tire you’re at risk of a major accident. That is unacceptable.”

Democratic Washington Governor Jay Inslee introduced a cap-and-trade program that would require the largest industrial polluters to pay for every ton of carbon they release, and then direct at least a portion of those funds into transportation. It could raise nearly $1 billion in its first year to pay for transportation projects. California is the only other state to attempt such a funding mechanism.

“Without action, there will be 52 percent cut in the maintenance budget, and 71 bridges will become structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Without action, commute times will continue to rise, robbing us of time with our families. Without action, our ability to move goods efficiently will be diminished.

[This plan] keeps us safe by fixing our bridges, patching our roads, and cleaning out air and water. It also embraces efficiency, saves time and money, and drives results that the public can trust through real reform. Finally, it’s a plan that delivers a transportation system that truly works as a system. A system that transcends our old divides and rivalries. No more east versus west, urban versus rural or roads versus transit.”

Though some plans are certainly better than others, these nine governors are demonstrating true leadership by bucking the conventional wisdom and supporting new revenue to invest in transportation and infrastructure. More could follow in the weeks ahead as a few more State of the State addresses happen and legislative sessions get underway. Transportation for America is pleased to see these leaders take a stand on raising stable transportation funding, and we hope that Congress follows suit to support their efforts by rescuing the nation’s transportation fund from insolvency this spring.

Transportation for America’s year in review

As 2014 draws to a close, we are taking a look back at our five most popular posts over the last year.

It has been a busy 12 months: We stood up an advisory board of prominent mayors, business leaders and others as we continued to make local funding and latitude our top priority. We brought people from 30 states together as we launched our new state advocacy network and followed it immediately with a new guidebook for innovative metropolitan regions. We dogged the implementation of MAP-21, and won a victory on a proposed safety rule. We tracked the progress of smart transportation plans at the ballot box, and demonstrated that nearly all state legislators lived on after to voting to increase their state’s gasoline tax.

Here are T4America’s most-clicked posts over the past year:

5. Important transportation ballot measures decided yesterday

“Despite the defeat Tuesday of some high-profile measures, transportation funding asks continue to be approved at very high rates – and a few key wins may have impact for years to come.”

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

 

4. Inclusive planning, bipartisan support and ambitious investments are fueling economic prosperity

 With stories of partisan gridlock making headlines every day, Utah stands out as a model of collaborative planning for a better future. State leaders and citizens have managed to stare down a recession while making transportation investments that accommodate projected population growth and bolster the economy and quality of life.”

Salt Lake City Featured

 

3. States stepping up to raise transportation revenue

Since the start of 2013, major new proposals from governors, state legislatures and blue ribbon commissions galore have sparked a new debate over the ways we collect revenue for transportation at every level.

Graphic - state plans approved map

2. The Innovative MPO

 America today is a metropolitan nation: More than 85 percent of us live in metro areas large and small. That makes planning for how people and goods move within and through these metropolitan areas more critical than ever. You may never even consider the fact, but chances, your commute this morning was shaped by the work of a metropolitan planning organization – and not only your commute, but also your entire metro region, to some degree. The organizations who are tasked with providing that guidance are known as metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

Innovative MPO web graphic 2

 

1. T4America launches new state transportation network during ‘historic’ gathering in Denver

Representative from 30 states – business leaders, legislators, local elected leaders, advocates and others – gathered in Denver’s historic Oxford Hotel and its newly reopened Union Station for our Capital Ideas conference to learn how states can raise money for smart, 21st century investments in transportation. Judging by the enthusiastic engagement over two days last Thursday and Friday, it felt like the start of something big.

Capital Ideas web

 

As Michigan legislators race the clock on a transportation deal, other states plan initiatives

We tapped a nerve in November with the Capital Ideas conference in Denver. More than 30 states sent representatives – some of whom went right back to their states and got to work helping their communities make progress.

Folks in Michigan are working with Gov. Rick Snyder to adopt a long-term, stable funding source for infrastructure. As their session winds to a close this week, legislative leaders are working in a House-Senate conference committee to hammer out a compromise that could bring as much as $1 billion a year in additional funding to repair and improve transportation infrastructure.

Gov. Snyder, who has been pushing for money to fix roads and bridges since coming into office, has seen the lame duck session as an opportunity for the GOP-controlled legislature to adopt a plan to raise additional transportation revenue, according to The Detroit News.

“The money I’m talking about is to get us to fair-to-good roads,” Snyder said, after taking a tour of Detroit’s highways. “They’re not even going to be great roads, folks. … We were the state to put America on wheels. Now we’re also widely known as a state with some of the worst roads in the country, and that’s just unacceptable.”

Over the summer, House Republicans responded by passing a much more modest plan to help fund the road upkeep. The $450 million a year would have come mostly from the general fund rather than a gas tax increase, while converting the 19 cents-per-gallon tax to a 6 percent tax at the wholesale level.

But the governor and Senate leaders preferred a more robust package that did not require taking money from other areas of the state budget. It took until after the election, in November, for the Republican controlled Senate to respond by passing an even larger funding package. The plan would increase the gas tax to the equivalent of 44 cents over four years, based on the wholesale prices.

While Michigan legislators work on their compromise, we already are hearing of transportation initiatives moving in other states. This month James Corless, director of T4America, was invited to testify before the Senate Transportation Committee in Oregon. We also met with legislators, state and local officials, and business leaders in Louisiana to discuss transportation policy and funding options. Many others in our state network are developing plans for the upcoming 2015 legislative sessions.

To join with us in our state work, sign up for the state advocacy network.

Three metro planning leaders help make T4America’s MPO guidebook launch successful

Transportation planning is hot, hot, hot! Or so it would seem, after more than 700 people registered for last week’s online seminar to launch The Innovative MPO, a guidebook for metropolitan transportation planning.

The book draws on the work of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) of all sizes across the country, offering a range of new ideas in planning, programming, technical analysis and community partnerships for almost any MPO. The seminar offered a small sample of those offerings. (You can see a tweet-by-tweet recap on this Storify page.)

Speakers included Andy Cotugno, Senior Policy Advisor from Portland Metro; Tim Brennan, Executive Director of Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC), and Steve Devencenzi, Planning Director from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). Health, equity, safety, climate mitigation, and performance measures were all major themes that MPOs are currently facing and trying to solve, and these three are on the forefront of finding solutions.

Cotugno retraced some of the tactics Metro used to make it possible to do more while driving less. “Importantly, the impact of linking land use and transportation is that our vehicle miles traveled per capita, which is one of our key performance key indicators, has been going down for the past 15 years,” said Cotugno. “That’s a result of having a tight urban growth boundary, focusing on transit investments, and aggressively improving transit, and expanding bike and pedestrian; all leading to shorter trips and less vehicles miles traveled. “

The decline of "vehicle miles traveled" in Portland, Oregon.

The decline of “vehicle miles traveled” in Portland, Oregon.

The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission is a medium-sized MPO covering the Springfield, MA, area – and it is a leader in incorporating health indicators and outcomes in its transportation planning. Brennan said that work is the outgrowth of a state policy adopted in 2009, known as GreenDOT, that seeks to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support smart growth development and promote the healthy options of walking, biking and public transit.”

He noted that Massachusetts also has committed to a “mode shift” goal of tripling transit, walking, bicycling trips through 2030. “The question for us as an MPO is … how do we connect transportation and health” in way a that meets the state goals?

“We are also trying to make smarter investments with the austere budgets we have for transportation.”

PVPC began to develop a method for screening and scoring projects to meet goals of reducing congestion and improving mobility while promoting active transportation and reducing health impacts. The first major opportunity to “make the connections real” was the proposed construction of an $800 million casino development by MGM, a project with major implications for Springfield. Among the key criteria was a health impact assessment that now has become integral to the project scorecard.

SLOCOG covers nearly 2.2 million acres in the San Luis Obispo, CA, area, encompasses seven cities, and was featured for innovations in scenario planning. The rate of growth within San Luis Obispo County has dropped off dramatically, Devencenzi said, leaving a much different tax base than was there just 20 years ago, with a current population of 275,000, expected to grow by 40,000 or so in the next 20 years.

However, the region is surrounded by huge populations that severely impact the area. Bordered by the Bay Area, Los Angeles County, San Joaquin Valley, San Diego, and the Sacramento area leaves the San Luis Obispo County trying to predict traffic patterns and congestion for a total population of 35.5 million people.

“There are about 30 million people that are within two hours of us, and they travel through and to our county. So we have a lot of issues in transportation that aren’t self-generated,” Devencenzi. The MPO used a state grant and contributions from member jurisdictions to meet requirements from a state law requiring coordination of land use and transportation (SB 375).

A big first step was to translate the disparate terms for zoning categories in the seven jurisdictions to a “common language”, creating a regional land use map that could then be used to determine where future growth could and should go.

“We allocated growth just within existing communities and demonstrated we can meet the future demand without having to sprawl across the countryside,” Devencenzi said. “We created target development areas around commercial districts,” and with massive public input, created a Regional Transportation Plan, out just this month.

These were only three of the more than 50 MPOs featured in the guidebook, organizations that are pushing the envelope to stretch public resources, achieve multiple benefits with a transportation dollar or simultaneously advance regional and economic development priorities.

The conversation over The Innovative MPO continues online and on Twitter. To join the conversation, follow the featured MPOs on Twitter, and use the #TheInnovativeMPO to stay updated with current practices MPOs are using to change their regions for the better.

GOP Rep. Petri joins bill to raise the federal gas tax

The Highway Trust Fund, our nation’s key infrastructure funding source, has been teetering on the edge of insolvency for the last half decade, with legislators from both parties unable to secure a long term funding source.

Rather than continue to stand by and do nothing, retiring Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) has decided to join Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, as a co-sponsor on a bill to gradually raise our current gas tax 15 cents to a total of 33.3 cents. That would be the first increase since 1993 when Bill Clinton was president and gas cost a little more than a dollar. The measure also would also index the tax to inflation to stave off future shortfalls.

On Wednesday morning, the bipartisan pair will host an event on Capitol Hill, accompanied by President Reagan – or at least his words and image., Reagan “spoke eloquently on the need for Congress to raise the gas tax in 1982,” according to a joint statement from the two.

B38VfbZIcAAHQ5a

Representative Blumenauer quotes President Reagan on the need for an increase of the gas tax at a press event at the Capitol.

Representative Petri has long been a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the House side and has said for years now that Congress needs to address the constant deficiencies of the Highway Trust Fund.

“In the Highways and Transit subcommittee, we have held hearing after hearing where state transportation officials, mayors, governors, truckers, transit operators, economists, and experts in transportation policy have testified with unwavering support for a long-term, fully-funded surface transportation bill,” said Petri, after the last short term fix was applied to the Highway Trust Fund over the summer.  “That should still be our goal.”

Blumenauer has been echoing similar sentiments since introducing a similar bill last December.

”Today, with inflation and increased fuel efficiency for vehicles, the average motorist is paying about half as much per mile as they did in 1993,” Blumenauer said in a statement at the time of the introduction. “It’s time for Congress to act. There’s a broad and persuasive coalition that stands ready to support Congress. We just need to give them something to support.”

Although the idea of raising the gas tax polls poorly, politicians of either party would seem to have little to fear from their constituents if they make a good case for ensuring sound highways and transit investments. Since 2012, 98 percent of state legislators in a variety of states including Wyoming, Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Hampshire who voted to approve an increase of the gas tax were re-elected in their next primary, our analysis shows.

When Senators Murphy and Corker introduced their bipartisan bill that would have raised the gas tax 12 cents over the next two years, Transportation for America’s director, James Corless, stated his approval with an urgency to find a long-term solution instead of short-term fixes.

“A return to stable funding will ensure that our states and communities can repair aging roads, bridges and transit systems and build the infrastructure we need for a growing economy. The alternative is to allow our transportation system to crumble along with an economy hobbled by crapshoot commutes and clogged freight corridors.”

Northeast Ohio plans ahead for a new network of transportation options

How can a place like the Cleveland region attract and retain talented young people, and how can good transportation options help? That was a core question posed to our Beth Osborne when she was invited to keynote a multimedia event dubbed “Cleveland Connects: Getting Around.”

Beth Osborne at Cleveland ConnectsOsborne, T4America’s vice president and senior policy advisor, noted that many younger professionals want to live in cities that offer a variety of transportation options. Many seek walkable neighborhoods that offer everything from restaurants and bars to local grocery stores and schools all within the same half-mile.

“When those kids decide they want to go find a job, they actually look for a place they want to live first, and then look for a job, which is a little different than the way people did things when I started looking for work. And that means jobs are following the talent. They’re looking for where the talent locates. And where talent tends to locate these days in places where they can access their needs, and fun, like restaurants and retail and bars on their own two feet. And that is a very different situation from what we had a few decades ago.”

The Nov. 24 event also presented local speakers from across the region and was featured in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the local NPR affiliate.

Cities and suburbs alike should acknowledge and respond to the big market and demographic changes that are afoot, she said. Chief among them are the dramatic growth in the share of single-person households and the coming wave of empty nesters among the Baby Boom generation.

“Those people have different needs and different desires in terms of transportation. Especially when you look at the younger generation. Many of them weren’t able to get their drivers’ license until they were close to 18 years old.”

While the car still dominates as Cleveland’s main mode of transportation, the region also offers a robust transit system recording an average of two million rides a year — including Cleveland’s popular HealthLine bus rapid transit. The region is considering adding 50 to 100 miles of bicycle lanes and improved bus and streetcar service, but officials are unsure of how to pay for it all when they can barely keep up with the required maintenance and repair.

“We’ve seen people show a great willingness to pay for transportation of all kinds when they have a good understanding of where their funding is going to go and what they’re going to get for it,” Osborne said. “The ballot initiatives for transportation have a success rate that is enviable for any area of over 70 percent, especially when it’s at the local level. Where, like I said, they have a good sense of where that money is going.”

North Shore Station in Downtown Cleveland.

North Shore Station in Downtown Cleveland. Photo credit to Geoff Livingston on Flickr.

Businesses, too, are learning just how profitable being near a transit stop, or in a walkable neighborhood can be. Osborne said her neighborhood in Washington, D.C., is home to one of the most profitable Target stores in the country. However, before Target agreed to build near the Columbia Heights Metro station, the company demanded the city build a “massive parking lot” beneath the store in a garage.

“They didn’t believe that people would go to a Target on foot. … It’s one of the most profitable in the country now, but the parking lot beneath it is empty. And the city is losing millions of dollars a year off of the ownership of an empty parking lot – money that should be going to other infrastructure like our schools.”

Local communities need to decide what works best for them when it comes to planning long term transportation needs and how to best fund them. With people driving less in their own cars in recent years, Cleveland officials acknowledge their need to focus their transportation policies and investments on meeting the changing needs of its region. Here’s hoping that our visit is the first step in an ongoing collaboration on behalf of the region’s economy and quality of life.

Join T4America this Thursday to unpack the transportation ramifications of tomorrow’s elections

Voters will make decisions on November 4 that will resonate deep into the future. Join us Thursday as we provide the inside scoop on how the elections will affect MAP-21 reauthorization and ever-dwindling highway trust fund revenues, and how important state and local transportation measures fared.

If the Senate flips to a Republican majority, what will it mean for federal transportation legislation and the anticipated Spring 2015 insolvency of the federal transportation fund? If Massachusetts successfully votes down an attempt to kill a portion of their new transportation funding package, what would that mean for other states’ hopes to stabilize transportation funding? What will the next two years bring?

Once the dust settles, we will be hosting a free teleconference on November 6th at 3:30pm EST to analyze and discuss the full impacts of these elections.

Register Here

 

We’ve been keeping a close eye on several significant ballot measures from Florida to Washington. Pinellas County will take a landmark vote on an ambitious expansion of their transit services. Texas could pass a measure to raise billions for highway spending without having to raise taxes or fees. And Maryland and Wisconsin are attempting to create dedicated transportation funds that can’t be diverted for other uses.

Federal legislation is routinely a reflection of what states and localities have already tested and tried to be true, which is why key state and local measures are so important for predicting what might be on the horizon in the next Congress.

We hope you join us this Thursday.

Leaders say St. Petersburg transit measure key to economic success

Voters in Pinellas County, Florida, which includes St. Petersburg and borders Tampa, have the chance to approve a one percent sales tax next week that will raise $130 million per year. The money will kickstart a 24-mile light rail system, improve and expand their bus system by 65 percent, build bus rapid transit lines, and increase important regional connections.

Pinellas County Light Rail Sketch

Passage would be a major step forward for St. Petersburg and the Tampa Bay region, coming four years after a similar measure in neighboring Hillsborough County narrowly failed.

The plan, known as Greenlight Pinellas, would make a key change to the county’s current funding mechanism for their bus system, erasing the transit millage on property taxes and replacing it with a one percent sales tax. That’s a key change, as it shifts the burden of paying for transit from property owners only, to one that’s shared by the large numbers of tourists and visitors visiting the region. As much as a third of the revenue would eventually come from tourists, according to Greenlight.

The Tampa Tribune endorsed the measure, especially the aspect to shift the funding burden away from solely Pinellas property owners. “Tourism is at record levels as the recession fades. It’s time the county adopted a comprehensive mass transit vision reflecting that dynamic growth.”

The plan would almost immediately improve bus service and increase frequency, and will eventually expand service by about 65 percent, adding new weekend and night service, as well as more frequent service to job centers like Tampa International Airport and downtown St. Pete and Tampa to better connect employees to jobs.

Rapid bus and BRT service will be added on six of the busiest, most productive corridors, and work will begin on a 24-mile light rail line that runs across the county, from Clearwater in the northwest, to downtown St. Pete in the southeast. (Pinellas will still have to assemble other local, state and federal funding to complete the $1.6 billion rail project, but importantly, this measure would also raise enough money to cover the operations of that line once it is up and running.)

The business community has been full-throated in its support of the measure. As of October 10th, supporters had raised over $1 million to support the campaign. The Tampa Bay Partnership, the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, Sykes Enterprises, Bright House Networks, TransAmerica Insurance and Derby Lane, the Tampa Bay Rays and Lightning, and numerous other local small businesses are supporting the measure.

Michael Kalt, a senior vice president with the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team, told Greenlight that, “Transit is really the linchpin to economic success and improving the quality of life in any major metropolitan area.”

The Tampa Bay Times supported the measure in a strong op-ed. “Tampa Bay is the largest metropolitan area without a viable transportation system that includes bus service and some form of rail.” This project, if approved, will be the first step in “correcting a weakness” of the Tampa Bay region, the editorial continued. Their columnist Joe Henderson also argues for the passage asking his readers, ”How much longer does it take you to get from Point A to B now than it did five years ago? You think an extra penny in sales tax is expensive? Try measuring the loss when businesses take their new jobs elsewhere because of the congestion.”

Pinellas County Projected Routes

The project has major political support in addition to the private support, with endorsements from the mayors of the four largest cities and Representative Kathy Castor (D-FL), who said, “This is an active community; this is a community on the go, but we need better transportation options.” Encouraging her constituents to vote yes, she said, “When you do that, you will be making an investment in yourself.”

The organized opposition, No Tax for Tracks, worries about the burden of increasing the sales tax one cent, bringing it to a total of eight percent. They are also concerned about low ridership, though Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority has reported record boardings the last few years on its buses.

Perhaps no one will be watching this measure more closely than their counterparts across Tampa Bay.

It’s no coincidence that some of the strongest support has been coming from leaders there in Tampa and Hillsborough County: They have high hopes for a referendum of their own to expand existing transit service, build new light rail and some new regional connections, especially after seeing a measure fail four years ago. This new light rail line from Clearwater to downtown St. Petersburg could be the beginning of so much more.

“Perhaps, the rail line represents what could be the start of a regional system across the Howard Frankland Bridge that might one day link the airport, the University of South Florida, the commercial hubs in Gateway, West Shore and downtown Tampa,” said the Times editorial.

Stay tuned next week to hear the results of the voting.

Pinellas County is one of a handful of state and local measures to raise revenue to invest transportation. For more information on the measures we’re keeping a close eye on next week, make sure to check out our full Transportation Vote 2014 page.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

To better serve the states and localities that are currently campaigning (or hope to campaign) for smart transportation investments, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver on November 13-14th. There’s still time to register, so learn more today.

If you want to know more about ballot measures related specifically to transit, turn to the Center for Transportation Excellence, who tracks all of those measures and aggregates numbers on results nationwide on an ongoing basis.

Rhode Island’s first statewide ballot measure to support transit

Rhode Island’s first ever statewide transit ballot measure would issue $35 million in bonds to invest in the state’s transit infrastructure and improve bus service statewide, including new and reworked transit hubs to bring together different modes of travel.

The transit bonds (Question 6) are part of a larger $275 million package backed by Governor Chafee. The money would largely be invested in building and modernizing existing and new transit hubs — with a primary focus on building a statewide multi-modal transportation center adjacent to Providence Amtrak Station, the 15th busiest station in Amtrak’s national network and the 3rd busiest station in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s commuter rail network. And it could serve as a source of local funds required to “match” most federal grant programs as well as for leveraging private investment, helping bring even more transportation investment into the state.

Currently, there are few direct connections from one transit system to another in Providence. Building the hub will eliminate an inconvenient walk outside in the elements to get from the bus to the train, making travel and connections much more convenient and efficient.

Local and statewide business officials have identified improving the state’s transportation and infrastructure system as a necessity for staying competitive in the future.

Michael Lewis, director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, told the Providence Journal, “In any urban area, in any city, any state in the country, your transportation systems are critical to the economic health and vitality of any region.”

Even though most work is focused in Providence, these connections will expand access at key points throughout the state, says Lewis, including a complete re-vamp of RIPTA, the state bus system.

Having local dollars to match federal funds is a requirement for most federal grant programs like TIGER, and it can also help bring in other investment.

“This bond issue is going to enable Rhode Island to bring money to the table to leverage federal and private dollars so we can create the kind of transit system that’s going to make Providence and Rhode Island competitive,” Lewis said in an interview with WPRI News.

The “Move RI Forward – Yes on 6” campaign is spearheaded by Grow Smart RI and includes 63 members including the local and statewide chambers of commerce, businesses, construction and real estate companies, environmental organizations and even the American Automobile Association Southern New England. Scott Wolf, the executive director of Grow Smart RI and spokesperson for the “Yes on 6” campaign, said, “We believe a stronger transit system will attract new businesses and talented workers to Rhode Island, while also creating badly needed construction jobs, reducing congestion, and improving our air quality and our overall environment.”

Supporters argue that to stay competitive with other midsized cities such as Indianapolis and Eugene, Oregon, the state must attract and retain high-growth companies and highly talented workers. Wolf says Providence isn’t able to do that without the “boost to our public transportation system that this bond would provide.”

In September Rhode Island was awarded a $650,000 TIGER Grant to begin designing the multi-modal transit center, helping lay the groundwork to make these future bond dollars go as far as possible.

While there has been no organized opposition to Question 6, the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity is against the bond package as a whole, arguing the state can’t afford to take on more debt.

“We start programs, the feds fund it for a limited period of time, the federal funding goes away,” said Mike Stenhouse, a member of the R.I. Center for Freedom and Prosperity. “We’re stuck with maintaining or keeping up payments that were started.”

Rhode Island is just one in a series of states looking to voters to approve greater investments in their transportation system. For more information on important ballot measures being decided this November, make sure to check out our full Transportation Vote 2014 page.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic


Capital Ideas sidebar promoTo better serve the states and localities that are currently campaigning (or hope to campaign) for smart transportation investments, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver on November 13-14th. There’s still time to register for this event.

If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

Texas looks to voters to ensure billions for highway funding

Facing a population and economic boom sufficient to give Texas seven out of the top 15 fastest growing cities, state legislators are looking to voters to direct more revenue to build more highways, but without raising new fees or taxes.

Texas has responded to the boom by building toll roads, wider highways, and some mass transit options in a few cities, but the state DOT and many state legislators feel that Texas isn’t building what they need to serve the 1,500 new residents moving there everyday — and they’re on the lookout for more money.

Texas currently has what they call a “rainy day” fund replenished with revenue generated from gas and oil drilling taxes and fees. The fund has been used in the past to help fill budget gaps and avoid budget cuts during economic slumps.

The legislature has placed a measure on this November’s ballot (Proposition 1) amending the state constitution to divert half of these funds for the next ten years to a State Highway Fund, to be used exclusively for highway construction, repair, and maintenance. This fund could not be used for toll roads.

Texas’ gas tax is currently set at 20 cents per gallon and was last raised in 1991. The coalition urging its passage says that Proposition 1 will raise an estimated $1.7 billion within the first year.

Both Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott and his Democratic opponent Wendy Davis are supporting the measure while campaigning for office. Organized support comes from Move Texas Forward, Texas Future, Transportation Advocates of Texas, and a broad range of trade associations, chambers of commerce, and other advocacy groups across the state.

Directing a portion of money generated by the very thing driving Texas’ economic boom right now (oil and gas) into the transportation network seems rational. However, it would be even smarter to leave those dollars flexible enough to address pressing needs in the transportation network wherever they arise, not just on the highway system. With several large and growing metropolitan areas, the state is going to need to invest in trains, bus lines, freight projects, passenger rail to connect cities, and local street networks as well.

The Houston Chronicle describes opposition to the proposal as “token and largely unorganized.” President of the Houston Property Rights Association, Barry Klein, hoped for a defeat so it “would force transportation official to confront their spending demands, possibly leaving the state better off when it comes to prioritizing projects.”

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphicFor more on important ballot measures to watch this Nov. 4, visit our Transportation Vote 2014 page.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest wisely in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s election. If you’ve been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed.

Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Facing the uncertainty of stable federal transportation funding and often unwilling to raise their own taxes to fund transportation, some states have seized upon the idea of protecting their transportation revenues for transportation uses. On Nov. 4, Maryland and Wisconsin voters will be deciding on similar measures that would put transportation funds into protected accounts that can’t be appropriated for non-transportation uses.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

Unlike the protected federal trust fund for transportation, the revenues gathered from the systems’ users in many states (gas taxes, fees and other sources) can be appropriated for other non-transportation needs. In Maryland, more than $1.3 billion intended for transportation has been appropriated to other items in the budget over the last few years, according to Greater Greater Washington’s detailed look at the measure.

Currently, the various transportation taxes in Maryland go into a state trust fund for improving safety, reducing congestion, and improving mass transit, air travel, and port facilities — but those funds can be easily moved by legislators each year to fill other gaps in the budget.

Maryland’s Question 1 would require the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency and get a three-fifths vote from both houses of the General Assembly before any funds could be taken out of the transportation trust fund.

Supporters of Question 1 argue that by placing revenues in a “lockbox” it will ensure stable funding for long-term projects, improve accountability, and help restore the confidence of voters and those paying into the system. After all, if Maryland wanted to increase their gas tax some day in the future, it certainly becomes easier to convince voters of the need when they can also guarantee that any new revenues would be spent on transportation needs.

Proponents include a range of business groups, AAA, transit advocates in the Baltimore and Washington, DC regions, and real estate professionals; with little organized opposition to the measure.

Wisconsin is considering a similar measure. With a conservative governor, Scott Walker, and a legislature resistant to raising the gas tax or registration fees, Wisconsin’s referendum would amend the state constitution to require any revenues derived from the transportation system to be spent on transportation projects and making them non-transferable to other needs. To date, $1.3 billion has been transferred out of the transportation fund, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

The Wisconsin proposal actually had its genesis several years ago and has only now reached the ballot because state law requires two consecutive legislatures to approve a joint resolution before it can be placed on the ballot.

Supporters under the banner of “Vote Yes for Transportation” include chambers of commerce, corporations, and labor unions. While some advocates, such as Forward Lookout and Bus, Bike, Walk Wisconsin have expressed concern that this could be the first step toward restricting the use of transportation user fees for transit or other multimodal projects, nothing in this legislation appears to do anything like that, and according to Vote Yes for Transportation, “Wisconsin’s segregated transportation fund is the sole source of state funding for the entire transportation system – highways, air, rail, transit, harbors, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.”

There is no organized opposition, though some state legislators question the need for such a lockbox. Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) expressed concerns about special interests groups, saying, “It guarantees the highway lobby a lock on certain funds. To give one special-interest group a constitutional lock on a hunk of money, I do not think is good public policy. “

According to most of the data we’ve seen, both measures are likely to pass, but we’ll be keeping an eye on the results, and posting them on Transportation Vote 2014 after the election, so check back. You can keep track of the other state and local transportation ballot measures we’re following there as well.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s elections. If you have been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. Join us there.

Helping interested communities make better use of land around transit lines and stops

A new pilot program from the Federal Transit Administration will help communities make better use of land around transit lines and stops. For those interested in applying, T4America recently pulled together several experts in a session to help them understand how to best take advantage.

One of the few bright spots in MAP-21 was the creation of this small pilot program of competitive grants for communities trying to support better development within their new transit corridors — a smart way to boost ridership and support local economic development.

With applications due in November, this T4America webinar was timely for those municipalities hoping to take advantage of federal dollars intended to better capitalize on the value of past investments in transit.

Nearly $20 million is available to support transit-oriented development around “fixed guideway” projects, which includes light rail, subway, streetcar, commuter rail, and bus rapid transit running in separate lanes. Grants from $250,000 to $2 million will be allotted to the best applicants from across the country that are focused on mixed-use development, affordable housing, and bicycling/pedestrian needs and have a strong, proven partnership with the private sector.

John Hempelmann, founding partner of Cairncross & Hempelmann, praised the private sector for leading the way on partnerships with transit agencies, realizing that projects like these bring both jobs and economic opportunities to the area.

“Urban growth is happening all over the country. We have this opportunity and we need to do this right.”

Hempelmann also stressed that while the program was over-subscribed, applicants should take heart. Because it’s oversubscribed, he said, it shows the Department of Transportation that local communities want this type of development. And just by applying communities are making progress by working to get private businesses on board and form coalitions. Even for the applications that don’t win funding, these critical partnerships can be of benefit in the future.

It’s not just about partnership with the private sector, though. The U.S. Department of Transportation has made it clear that if a project spans multiple jurisdictions, they want to see partnerships between the communities to show dedication to the project.

Beth Osborne, senior policy advisor for Transportation for America, highlighted the absolute necessity for these kinds of partnerships throughout the community, since it proves to the Department of Transportation that there is not only local interest, but also local support and commitment to the project.

“They want local commitment to the project; people can often be just as important as cash,” Osborne said.

Private and institutional land-owners and developers are critical to the long-term success of transit-oriented development, because they’re the ones most often putting their capital up or building the actual product in these areas around transit lines. Creating partnerships that can do it right offer the greatest opportunities for creating walkable, connected neighborhoods with good access to jobs and affordable housing.

We’ll continue providing similar resources like this webinar, and we’ll be tracking the progress of these applicants and reporting back on the winners hopefully in 2015. To keep updated on these kinds of webinars, sign up for our newsletter here, follow us on twitter, and check back here regularly.

(Ed. Note: Also featured as speakers were Homer Carlisle, Senior Professional Staff for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Sarah Kline, policy director for Transportation for America.) 

Transit still more popular with millennials, despite their upbringing

One of the deepest studies of attitudes about public transportation, published yesterday, finds that core fundamentals like speed, reliability and cost are far more important to millennials than wi-fi or smartphone apps. They’re open to riding it even more, but like everyone else, find that there just aren’t enough neighborhoods being built that have great transit options.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by wowwzers.

Flickr Creative Commons photo by wowwzers.

Our own recent poll explored the attitudes of millennials in relation to cities and their general positive attitudes about public transportation, but this terrific survey from TransitCenter goes even deeper with questions to people of all ages from all over the country on what they think of transit and where they live as a whole.

What type of neighborhood are they currently living in? What type of neighborhood would they like to live in? What is the ideal type of neighborhood to live and raise a family in? How does one make a decision to change how he or she gets around?

According to this 12,000-person survey by TransitCenter, a civic philanthropy, unsurprisingly, people under age 30 use public transportation the most, across the 46 metros surveyed. They looked at a variety of places that broke into two distinct categories; metros considered “transit progressive” akin to San Francisco or Washington, D.C., or “transit deficient,” like Little Rock, Arkansas and El Paso, Texas. Age was the greatest factor overall, non-dependent on region, education level, or income.

One of the more interesting findings in the report was that “there is no unique ‘cultural bias’ against transit in [the South, Midwest], and that if you build a quality transit system (and the land use is supportive), people will ride it no matter where they are from.”

While it’s been proven that younger generations are most likely to use public transportation, it’s largely happening in contrast to their upbringing. The report shows that millennials were less likely to: have been encouraged to walk or bike by their parents, to have grown up within walking or biking distance of a commercial district, and less likely to have traveled by themselves on public transit as children. In fact, 39 percent of them said their parents thought it was unsafe for them to ride transit.

This shows a huge generational shift (though maybe just an insight to human nature) from their Baby Boomer parents who grew up in denser urban neighborhoods and might have used transit as children. The over-60 group is now the least likely group to want to live in urban areas and rides public transit the least. As the report states, “Put simply, Baby Boomers don’t live in – and largely don’t want to live in – places well-served by transit.”

Data Who's On Board

Some surprising findings upended the conventional wisdom that’s been reported about millennials. Better smartphone apps or wi-fi on their buses or trains are near the top of the list of things that would induce them to ride more often, right? Nope. Across every single age group, the fundamentals were the most important consideration of all: quicker trips (speed), more stations near them, cheaper, and more reliable than other options.

The findings on housing confirmed much of what’s been reported by Smart Growth America, the National Association of Realtors, and a handful of other recent polls: the market is not building enough of the kind of neighborhood that is in the highest demand these days.

TransitCenter found that 58 percent of all respondents wanted to live in neighborhoods that consisted of a mixed use between housing, retail, offices, and restaurants that provided a variety of options to get around including public transportation and safe walkable streets. However, only 39 percent currently live in such a neighborhood, creating a huge demand for this ‘ideal’ neighborhood.

Meeting the demand for that type of neighborhood — especially in places connected to today’s or tomorrow’s transit lines — will create a positive feedback loop of boosting ridership. Supply more neighborhoods connected to transit, and you’ll create more riders out of the people who say they’d ride it if they could, but don’t live somewhere it’s available.

While a majority of Americans may not necessarily want to live downtown in a big city, they do want their neighborhoods to transform into better towns or suburbs centered around a mix of uses with more options for getting around.

The findings in this smart survey should inform the elected officials, commissioners, and policy advocates planning for the needs of our growing and diversifying population in towns and cities of all sizes.

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts follow the trend: voters support transportation revenue increases

As voters have been proving over and over during primary season this year, raising taxes or fees for transportation isn’t a political death sentence – no matter the party or political affiliation. In the past two weeks, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire’s state legislators faced their first primary since voting to pass bills to raise additional state revenue for much needed transportation and infrastructure projects.

Vermont passed House Bill 510 in March 2013, to diversify their transportation revenue by introducing a 4 percent sales tax on the price of gas. This raises the overall gas tax by 7.5 cents, though it put a floor and a cap on the new sales tax portion so that Vermont drivers will never pay less than 13.4 cents per gallon or a maximum of 18 cents. H.B. 510 also authorized $10.38 billion in bonds.

“It was not an easy choice to move in this direction, and we didn’t make this decision lightly,” said House Transportation Chair Pat Brennan (R-Colchester) said at the time.“ We explored anywhere between 15 to 20 different funding options, and we ended right back here every time.”

The measure passed 128-42, with 18 Republicans and 104 Democrats voting “aye.” Of the 15 supportive Republicans who ran again, just one lost in the primaries on August 26th. Leigh Larocque (R-Barnet) lost to Marcia Robinson Martel. All of the 86 Democrats who supported the bill and ran for re-election won their primaries.

Massachusetts’ ambitious H3535, enacted in 2013, raised the gas tax 3 cents and indexed it to inflation, while also requiring the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to raise a greater portion of their costs – up to an additional $229 million a year — through various avenues including tolls, fees, fares, and others.

In the heavily Democratic state, the bill passed 158-38, with 157 Democrats and just one Republican voting yes. All but one of the 133 supportive Democrats running for re-election won their primaries, with Rep. Wayne Matewsky (D-Everett) losing his seat to Joseph McGonagle, Jr.

(There is a footnote to these results in Massachusetts. A measure has been added to this year’s November’s ballot to reverse the legislation completely. One benefit of that is that, after these primaries, we’ll have another public referendum on raising transportation revenues put directly to the voters. It’s just one of many important ballot measures we’ll be keeping a close eye on here this November, so check back. – Ed.)

New Hampshire has a very similar story. In 2013, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 367, which increased the per gallon tax by 4 cents. The funds raised were dedicated to rehabilitation and bridge repair projects for the next two years. In the last version of our report on bridge conditions in 2013, New Hampshire had the eighth-worst bridges in the country, with 14.9% of all bridges rated structurally deficient. The bill also added bonds for the widening of Interstate 93.

The bill passed 208-150, with 186 Democrats and 22 Republicans voting in favor of upping the state’s investment in transportation. Just three of those supportive legislators running for re-election failed to keep their seats, meaning 98.13 percent kept their seats after supporting SB 367. 21 state legislators decided not to run for re-election for various reasons.

John Graham (R-Bedford), William O’Neil (D-Manchester), and Steven Briden (D-Exeter) lost their seats in Tuesday’s primary. As of this writing there is no indication that the transportation revenue vote was a primary culprit.

Among all states holding primaries after a transportation tax increase – these three plus Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and Wyoming – supportive legislators have kept their seats at a rate of 98 percent. Voters clearly have been rewarding their state legislators who are brave enough to make the hard decisions when it comes to funding transportation and infrastructure.

All of the primaries this season in the states that we’re following have occurred, so we’re wrapping up this series for now. But all of these results are chronicled in one place now on our website, along with our page tracking all of the considered and enacted state plans to raise transportation revenue.