News and Blog - Page 17 of 77 - Transportation For America

It’s time to fund public transportation and highways equally

With a new Congress preparing to take office—bringing hopes of an infrastructure stimulus with them—it’s time to end an outdated agreement keeping American transportation stuck in the ‘80s: restricting public transit to only 20 percent of federal transportation funding while highways get 80 percent. Sign our petition today to tell Congress to fund them equally.

Can you imagine what we could accomplish if transit was funded as much as highways? Photo of Metroway (bus rapid transit in Northern Virginia) by BeyondDC on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

It’s critical that Congress funds public transit and highways in the next transportation authorization, ending an outdated rule that makes it near impossible for states and local governments to deliver the high-quality public transportation Americans want. Sign our petition to urge Congress to fund transit as much as highways.

Since 1982, thanks to an agreement signed by President Reagan, spending from the federal Highway Trust Fund has followed this formula: 80 percent for highways, 20 percent for public transportation (though in reality, transit gets much less). The logic behind this was that since the Trust Fund’s funding came from the gas tax drivers pay at the pump, most of the funding should be spent on highways.

As our colleague Emily Mangan wrote this summer, this logic no longer applies because the Highway Trust Fund hasn’t been a trust fund by any definition of that term in a long time. It hasn’t been exclusively funded by the gas tax since 2008, when it ran out of money because the gas tax was no longer sufficient to cover expenditures. To stay afloat, the trust fund received huge infusions of general taxpayer dollars totaling over $144 billion—meaning that every taxpayer is funding transportation, whether they bought a single gallon of gas or drove a mile this year or not.

Yet we still applied this arbitrary funding split to the influx of new transportation funds in the Recovery Act of 2009, which was sourced entirely from deficit spending from the general fund and not a single dime from gas tax user fees. Yet roughly 75 percent of the Recovery Act dollars went to roads.

The consequences of not funding transit and highways equally

Even though highways receive the overwhelming majority of federal transportation funding, they fail to solve our transportation problems on their own. In fact, this huge amount of highway funding makes our problems—congestion, carbon emissions, dangerous roadways, reduced access to jobs and services—worse. Because there’s no rule requiring that states spend highway funding on maintenance before expansion, or any performance measures requiring that states improve people’s access to jobs and services by all modes, our highway investments wind up just increasing congestion and carbon emissions while disconnecting Americans from the daily services they need.

Guaranteeing that highways receive 80 percent of federal funding also reduces states’ and local governments’ freedom to choose for themselves what they want to build and how they want to solve their own transportation challenges. According to recent polling, voters overwhelmingly believe that their communities and the country as a whole would benefit from increased transit investment. But Congress has hampered states’ and communities’ ability to deliver this for decades by putting their thumb on the scale and incentivizing highway expansion with huge amounts of funding, making it incredibly difficult to choose a transit solution to a transportation problem.

This 80/20 split also leaves the transit infrastructure that already exists out to rot. According to the American Public Transportation Association, addressing the backlog of deferred transit maintenance backlog would cost $90 billion—or just two years of highway funding.

It doesn’t have to be this way. If Congress were to end the arbitrary 80/20 split and fund transit and highways equally, we could fix our aging public transportation infrastructure and provide the frequent and reliable service necessary to connect people to jobs and services. With more transit funding, states would be incentivized to make roadway investments that accommodate transit, not compete with it, such as investments in complete streets and land-use changes that make it safe and easy to bike and walk and therefore to access transit.

Meaningful and consistent investment in public transportation is critical to reducing our carbon emissions, improving public health, dismantling barriers to opportunity—especially those faced by people of color—and supporting our economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. It’s time for Congress to free states and local governments from this arbitrary 80-20 split in transportation funding and let them invest in transit.

Congressional leadership and junior members offer hope

There are numerous elected officials in Congress who understand the power of transportation policy to strengthen our economy, save lives, dismantle barriers to opportunity, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. From the innovative Future of Transportation Caucus, to leaders like Rep. Peter DeFazio, and to bipartisan members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the incoming Congress has a real shot at reforming transportation policy to work for all Americans—regardless of if they drive or not.

The House of Representatives has a great jumping off point with the INVEST Act, a bill they passed this summer, that starts to finally connect transportation funding to the outcomes Americans want. Instead of pumping more general funds into the existing program, the bill employs performance measures and requirements to align funds with our goals: reducing our enormous backlog of roadway maintenance, decreasing congestion and carbon emissions, and making our streets safe for all road users. We strongly urge the incoming House of Representatives to pick up this bill again—and fund transit and highways equally this time.

To kick off that effort, next month Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (a founding co-chair of the Future of Transportation Caucus) will introduce a resolution to the House of Representatives urging members to support funding transit and highways equally in the next surface transportation authorization. A resolution like this would have been unthinkable just three years ago—a real testament to the changing attitudes towards transportation policy.

Tell Congress: it’s time to end the 80-20 split

With federal transportation policy up for reauthorization this year and hopes for an infrastructure stimulus hitting the floors of Congress running high, now is the time for our elected leaders to solve our transportation problems and fund transit and highways equally. Sign our petition to urge Congress to end the 80/20 split and fund transit and highways equally.

SIGN THE PETITION

Driving Down Emissions in Minnesota

State and local policymakers have an important role to play in making it possible for people to drive less, which is essential for lowering transportation emissions. With our partners at Move Minnesota we produced a new case study companion to Driving Down Emissions looking at how Minnesota has seen some success reducing transportation emissions, why that progress won’t be sufficient, and how to stop leaving valuable strategies to create more livable and equitable communities on the table.

Our new report, Driving Down Emissions, identifies strategies that can help make a significant dent in growing transportation emissions while building a more just society simply by allowing Americans to drive less to accomplish daily needs. While national policy changes will be needed to address that goal, many state and local governments continue to create barriers by over-investing in new highway infrastructure and imposing onerous government regulations that make it nearly impossible to build more housing in walkable and transit-accessible places.

There is a lot that other states could learn from Minnesota. The state and its localities have taken a number of valuable steps to make it possible to drive less. Yet Minnesota also faces challenges common to many other states—including an overreliance on future electric vehicles to reduce emissions at the expense of strategies that can be used right now to help people get around outside of a car.

Read on for a summary of our Minnesota case study, and download the full version here.

The good news: progress reducing transportation emissions, and clear opportunities to do more

Minnesota has had some success reducing emissions from the transportation sector in recent years, particularly compared to some of its peers. The state’s annual transportation emissions peaked in the mid-2000s and then dropped 13 percent between 2005 and 2009. The state achieved this reduction partially by keeping driving per person in check, with annual miles driven per-person declining slightly between 2005 and 2017 (total miles driven annually has risen slightly). Minnesota has maintained that lower level since in contrast to national transportation emissions which began to climb since the last recession.

Minnesota also has a solid foundation to do more to make it possible for residents to drive less. The Twin Cities region (home to 65 percent of the state’s population) has made several strategic investments in light rail and bus rapid transit expansion, and has seen ridership increase on those lines in contrast to declining transit ridership elsewhere in the U.S. Outside of the Twin Cities, communities from Alexandria to Biwabik have made real progress making their streets safer for walking and biking, thanks in part to the state’s Complete Streets program and related initiatives.

The City of Minneapolis passed a comprehensive plan in 2018 to allow the addition of more housing in neighborhoods throughout the city while eliminating parking requirements, changes that have the potential to make a significant impact. In most urban areas in the U.S., the supply of affordable housing in walkable, transit-accessible neighborhoods is artificially constrained by government-mandated zoning requirements. Removing those restrictions will allow more housing in the region and make it more affordable to live in the city, mitigating future sprawl and the additional driving it would cause while addressing a continued source of economic and racial discrimination in the region.

Leaving valuable strategies on the table with an over reliance on electric vehicles

Despite those successes, Minnesota’s progress is just a start, and the state is not currently on track to meet its emissions reductions targets. Like many states, Minnesota has a legacy of prioritizing highway infrastructure that continues to have lasting impacts without further change. Sprawl continues to force more driving—in fact, the counties surrounding the Twin Cities are the main contributor to the state’s overall growth in driving annually.

Unfortunately the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) plans for decarbonizing the transportation sector largely downplay reducing driving as an option. Instead, they rely heavily on ambitious assumptions about future electric vehicle adoption—and even on as-of-yet undeveloped biofuels technology—despite the fact that Minnesota has lagged behind the national average in adoption of electric vehicles.

This is shortsighted and will lead the state to miss major opportunities. It also won’t address the needs of Minnesotans who can’t afford a car or are otherwise unable to drive, perpetuating existing inequities. Reducing the need to drive in Minnesota is not only doable, it’s what many Minnesotans want. Outreach conducted by MnDOT has shown broad public appetite for more walkable and less car-dependent communities. In fact, “walkable and bikeable communities” and “improved public transit” received the greatest support as a decarbonization strategy in MnDOT’s outreach, along with electric buses and trains.

It makes no sense to leave any emissions reduction strategy untouched, especially when Minnesota has had success reducing driving in the past. The state should do more of what it knows works.
Read the full case study.

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.

Playing politics with safety: “Anarchist” transit agencies caught in the crossfire

In blocking New York City, Portland, and Seattle from receiving Federal Transit Administration research grants, the Trump Administration is using arbitrary and politically-motivated pretext to deny cities and transit agencies the funding they need to make transit safer amidst the ongoing pandemic.

Transportation for America joined the National Association of City Transportation Officials, TransitCenter, NRDC and and Alliance for a Just Society in a statement condemning the Trump administration’s decision.

NACTO: Alex Engel | alex@nacto.org
TransitCenter: David Bragdon | dbragdon@transitcenter.org
Transportation for America: Jenna Fortunati | jenna.fortunati@t4america.org
NRDC: Mark Drajem | MDrajem@nrdc.org

As a coalition of cities, transit agencies, and transportation advocates, we oppose the Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal funds from cities the Attorney General labeled as “Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction.” Following instructions from the White House, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) disqualified transit agencies in New York City, Seattle, and Portland from participating in a new grant program to research methods to slow the spread of coronavirus on buses and trains. This move puts transit operators’ and riders’ safety at risk and sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine future economic recovery efforts.

Denying transit agencies funding obstructs their ability to develop best practices to make transit safer for millions of riders and workers, and the people with whom they interact. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York, TriMet in Portland, and King County Metro and Sound Transit in Seattle together make up nearly half of national transit ridership and have already made major contributions to our understanding of how to keep riders and operators safe from the virus. From testing vehicle filtration and UV light sanitation systems to instituting mask outreach and mandates, the ability of these larger, urban transit systems to evaluate new interventions is especially instructive for operators serving smaller, rural communities where Covid-19 outbreaks are currently most acute and resources are limited.

The Trump administration’s attempt to condition FTA grants on political criteria unrelated to need or merit sets a disturbing precedent. If applied to other forms of federal funding, this “guidance” has the potential to thwart cities’ long-term economic recovery efforts. Cities and transit agencies need a strong federal partner to maintain and restore service, invigorate local economies, and create new jobs.

Withholding federal funding from cities in retaliation for political disagreements is not only legally dubious but vindictive and undemocratic in its intent. Our organizations, representing cities, transit agencies, and transportation experts and advocates, stand in firm opposition to the Justice Department’s designation of New York, Portland, and Seattle as “anarchist jurisdictions” and against the arbitrary and capricious decision to deny some of the world’s most-used transit systems acutely-needed funding solely to serve a political agenda.

“Cities and transit agencies serve the public regardless of political affiliation or party. Withholding funds from jurisdictions in an attempt for political gain puts cities, transit agencies and our democracy at risk,” said Corinne Kisner, Executive Director of NACTO. “This decision endangers millions of transit riders and operators across our nation, and blocks those most equipped from studying new ways to make transit even safer.”

“Secretary Elaine Chao’s willingness to expose innocent transit riders and essential transit workers to greater risk of COVID just because of Donald Trump’s unrelated personal vendetta against certain local elected officials is both reckless and un-American. No American, in any city or state, should be sacrificed to a pandemic because of a President’s petty whims,” said David Bragdon of TransitCenter, an organization dedicated to improving public transportation.

“President Trump is putting ideology ahead of essential needs in the middle of a deadly pandemic,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “There simply is no excuse for leaving essential workers without a way to work and, therefore, all of us without essential services. But that is what the Trump Administration is doing to New York, Portland, and Seattle by taking away funding intended for their transit agencies.”

“This order undercuts essential workers and families who are trying to safely go back to work and school. Investments in fully-funded safe transit are critical to rebuilding an equitable and sustainable economy,” said LeeAnn Hall of Alliance for a Just Society, a national network of 15 racial, social and economic justice organizations.

“By denying funds to cities that need them, the Federal Transit Administration is putting the lives of Americans and the safety of our public transit systems at risk,” said Ann Shikany of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We need new research into how to keep our buses and trains safe during this pandemic; it’s unconscionable that this administration would play political games with something that important.”

About the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
NACTO is an association of 86 major North American cities and transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization’s mission is to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life. To learn more, visit nacto.org or follow us on Twitter @NACTO.

About TransitCenter
TransitCenter works to improve public transportation in ways that make cities more just, sustainable and prosperous, with applied research, events and publications.

About Transportation for America
Transportation for America is an advocacy organization made up of local, regional and state leaders who envision a transportation system that safely, affordably and conveniently connects people of all means and ability to jobs, services, and opportunity through multiple modes of travel. That work is conducted through direct technical assistance, analysis of transportation system performance, and policy development and advocacy. Learn more by visiting t4america.org or following us on Twitter @T4America.

About the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
NRDC is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, and Beijing. Visit us at NRDC.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

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

If we want equitable smart cities, we need support from philanthropy

A close-up of the handlebars of a Lime electric scooter. The scooter has a small computer screen that reads "Scan to Ride". To the right of the screen is a QR code.

Everyone agrees that smart cities—places that deploy technology to deliver government services and improve quality of life—are the future. City leaders and staff are inundated with these new mobility products but have limited capacity to ensure that they are deployed in ways that lead to equitable and sustainable outcomes. Our director Beth Osborne explains why cities, states, and non-profit actors need philanthropic support to pursue policy research and projects that make equitable, sustainable smart cities a reality.

Close-up of the handlebars of a Lime e-scooter, with “Scan to Ride” written on the scooter’s small computer screen.

Technology holds great promise to help cities monitor and allocate limited public space in ways that ensure safe, equitable, affordable, and sustainable access to jobs and services for everybody, no matter their financial means or physical ability. That’s where we should be heading as a country.

We hear about the endless possibilities of new mobility technology—like flexible curb management tools and smartphone access to shared scooters, bikes, and cars—in the news and at transportation conferences. However, we know that technology can be deployed in ways that allocate these benefits only to those who can pay, or to the wealthiest neighborhoods, or in ways that benefit the technology provider more than the public. Historically, this has been the case. (Think: automobiles, broadband, and more.)

To date, the power has been in the hands of those who develop and sell technology. Most of these companies are trying to produce good results for cities and people. But to survive, they have to pay attention to their bottom line. Plus, businesses can only really support cities that have the capacity to explain what kind of technology they need, and are then able to effectively manage that product once deployed and ensure that it supports broad societal benefits, like equity and sustainability.

That capacity requires funding. Philanthropies are traditionally a powerful force for this support, ensuring that modernization and innovation are used to ways that connect to broad social goals. Philanthropy is already doing this in so many areas, from electric vehicle deployment, transit advocacy, housing affordability, criminal justice reform and more. However, they have been largely absent as cities and non-profits pursue policy research and innovations to make smart cities a reality.

We learned this the hard way. For the past four years, Transportation for America has hosted the Smart Cities Collaborative, a year-long learning cohort where city transportation officials learn from each others’ efforts to use new mobility technologies in order to improve their transportation networks. The Collaborative has been a success: we’ve brought together cities from across the country to discuss approaches to new mobility, curbside management, and city innovation, and have launched several useful resources like the Shared Micromobility Playbook.

However, funding the Collaborative has been difficult. We rely on a combination of fees paid by cash-strapped cities, sponsorship agreements from new mobility and technology companies, and our advocacy peers. While we are so appreciative of the support we received from city participants and our private sector partners, there was a limit to what we could provide Collaborative members with this funding.

It’s simple: there will never exist a world in which a 1:1 swap between philanthropic dollars and private sector dollars works. Private sector companies have their own priorities that rarely, if ever, line up with city government’s priorities. This is of no fault of the private sector companies. But it’s exactly why philanthropies need to provide funding for smart cities projects and research: philanthropic funding that doesn’t need to boost a company’s profit margins.

Our Smart Cities Collaborative, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s short-lived Smart City Challenge (the seed that inspired our Collaborative), and similar non-business projects are where cities, states, the federal government, advocates, and philanthropists need to focus their efforts. Philanthropy will be essential for cities to have the capacity to deploy these technologies in ways that promote equity and sustainability. Without them, the future will inevitably be shaped by shorter term private sector interests and as yet unknown long term outcomes of these interests.

Transportation ballot initiatives to watch this November

A bus in Austin, Texas approaching an intersection at dusk. There is a bike rider crossing the street in the foreground.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of ballot initiatives for transit and transportation funding passed during the 2020 spring and summer primary elections, and a surprising number will head to voters in November. Here is a look at some of the major initiatives to watch next month.

A Capital Metro bus in Austin. Photo courtesy of Capital Metro.

Providing sustained funding for transit is more important than ever with potential service cuts looming across the country. Congress has yet to step in to provide sufficient relief funding, but some regions have a shot at raising local transit funding in November.

A few weeks ago, we shared a 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.

Many of the successful measures earlier this year were renewals of existing funding, and we’ll see some similar renewals on the ballot in November. However, there are also a surprising number of larger, forward-looking proposals headed to voters to raise new funding for transit expansion. Supporters in these regions see transit as a key part of economic recovery. Here are a few measures we will be watching especially closely.

Three big transit measures to watch

Voters in Austin, TX will consider a proposal to fund the first phase of Project Connect, a package of transit investments totalling $10 billion. For this initial phase, residents will vote on a property tax increase to raise $3.85 billion and leverage federal funds for a total of $7.1 billion. The proposal includes new light rail lines, a tunnel to house 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.

The region has a history of unsuccessful initiatives to fund light rail expansion. This proposal received unanimous approval from the Austin City Council but has faced some opposition locally, including in response to the cost and relative permanence of new light rail lines compared to improved bus service.

Portland, OR’s Let’s Get Moving measure (Measure 26-218) would raise a 0.75 percent payroll tax for large businesses to fund dozens of light rail and bus transit expansion and safety projects for people walking and biking along identified priority corridors. The measure is expected to generate around $4.2 billion and leverage an additional $2.84 billion in matching funds. It also includes funds for anti-displacement work in predominantly Black and Brown communities along the corridors.

Supporters argue that the investments will create 37,000 jobs and help jumpstart economic recovery. Critics have argued that the cost is too great. The business community has largely withdrawn support, and a number of larger businesses have contributed to a campaign against the measure.

These initiatives in Austin and Portland share some commonalities, including a forward-looking transit vision for the future, an emphasis on racial justice and preventing displacement, and robust campaigns supporting the measures as well as vocal local opposition.

In suburban Gwinnett County, GA in the Atlanta region, residents will vote on 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 vote 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. This time around, the proposed improvements will primarily expand the existing Gwinnett County Transit bus system, with bus rapid transit, more local and express service, and paratransit, and some local leaders hope to see a different outcome as a result.

We heard from Gwinnett County Commissioner Charlotte Nash at T4America’s Capital Ideas conference in 2018 about the region’s work building support for transit incrementally, so we are especially interested to see how this vote unfolds.

Other local and state initiatives of interest

Voters in Seattle, WA will decide whether 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 proposal 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.

Three smaller municipalities in Gratiot County, MI are seeking 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 passed the measure unanimously over the summer. Voters in each locality will decide in November whether they are willing to pay a property tax for public transit service in their communities. All three jurisdictions need to pass the measure for it to move forward.

Missoula, MT will ask voters to approve 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.

Newton County, GA is seeking a 1 percent Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax for transportation. Revenues will be shared among the cities located within the county using a formula, and each city will decide how to allocate its funds—a decentralized approach in contrast to Gwinnett County’s package of proposed transit investments above.

Voters in the Bay Area, CA will consider a 1/8 cent sales tax to provide dedicated funding for the region’s commuter rail, Caltrain. The tax would generate an estimated $108 million annually, which could help provide a lifeline for the rail line as it faces the possibility of a shutdown during the pandemic due to low ridership.

In North Carolina, residents will 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 includes $1.95 billion in education bonds. The state is facing a potential $5 billion shortfall due to lost tax revenue from the pandemic.

The State of Arkansas, Bellingham, WA, Monroe, MI and Wheeling and Bethlehem, WV will all decide whether to renew existing transportation and transit funding. Similar renewals have generally done well so far in 2020 despite COVID uncertainties.

What’s next

It’s worth noting that a number of planned ballot measures have been postponed or canceled in response to COVID—see our previous post for a non-exhaustive list.

We’ll watch these scheduled initiatives closely as we head into the November election and will share updates on the results. Stay tuned!

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.”

New analysis shows the impact of transit service cuts—and it’s devastating

With efforts to pass federal emergency relief stalling, transit agencies across the country are warning of drastic cuts to service.TransitCenter and the Center for Neighborhood Technology teamed up to analyze the devastating impact of these cuts, reaffirming the need for Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit immediately.

Public transportation is an absolutely critical part of millions of Americans’ lives, providing needed connections to jobs, schools, grocery stores, healthcare facilities and more. And without at least $32 billion in emergency funding for public transportation to survive the COVID-19 crisis, this vital link will crumble, leaving millions stranded.

That’s what TransitCenter and the Center for Neighborhood Technology found in their new joint report, Stranded by Service Cuts. The researchers honed in on 10 regions across the country and modeled the human impact of 50 percent cuts to peak transit service and 30 percent cuts to off-peak service. The result is a disheartening preview of the pain facing millions of Americans and the national economy.

Across the 10 regions, “more than 3 million households and 1.4 million jobs would lose access to frequent transit,” according to the report. “Second- and third-shift workers would lose an affordable way to commute, and households without vehicles would have an even harder time meeting everyday needs.”

The burden of these transit cuts would fall overwhelmingly on people of color. In Atlanta, this is especially pronounced: “More than half of people losing access to frequent full-day transit would be Black residents, and more than two-thirds of those losing access would be non-white or Hispanic,” according to the report.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress could do its job and save public transportation—a public good that so many Americans count on. Send a message to your member of Congress today, urging them to fight for at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit in the next COVID-19 relief package.

How have transportation ballot initiatives fared during the pandemic?

Woman walking by a bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. The bus is stopped to pick up passengers.

Regional ballot initiatives are a powerful tool localities can use to raise funding for transportation projects, especially in the face of uncertain federal funding. The COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis are creating a different landscape for ballot measures than we have seen in the past, but many are still moving forward and a number have already passed.

Check out our latest blog in this series on transportation ballot initiatives to watch this November.

We are big proponents of regional ballot initiatives (RBIs) here at Transportation for America. They can be transformative for localities, giving them more control over the growth of their transportation systems, making them less reliant on federal and state funding, and making voters partners in deciding the future of the system and contributing to maintaining it. In fact, we have been working for several years with our partners in Massachusetts to encourage the state legislature to grant localities the authority to go to their own voters seeking support for important infrastructure priorities. The state is one of only a handful of states that do not allow their localities this authority.

In the past, we have tracked ballot measures around the country during elections and profiled examples of successful initiatives, but this year is different and unprecedented. The COVID shutdown began right as the early spring primary elections were taking place, disrupting many of those votes. The economic crisis has raised questions about the wisdom of going to voters for additional funding at all right now, even as more funding for transit is sorely needed.

Despite those uncertainties, a number of ballot initiatives did move forward—and pass—during the spring and summer primaries. While it is difficult to predict what will happen in November based on those results, there are still some insights we can glean.

Here are our key takeaways from the local and state transportation votes that have already happened in 2020. Stay tuned for a follow-up post profiling the measures we’ll be watching in the November election.

Voters overwhelmingly approved renewals of existing transportation funding

A number of local property taxes that support transit were up for renewal this year, including for transit systems serving rural areas. Those votes have consistently passed—often by margins similar to prior pre-COVID votes based on the Center for Transportation Excellence’s transit campaign tracker. A few property tax renewals have also passed with small increases in the property tax rates to help keep up with existing service levels.

While those results may not be as exciting (or controversial) as big ticket campaigns to expand transit systems, the wins send a clear message. Many voters in smaller cities and rural areas served by transit want to see that service preserved, and they are willing to keep paying to make that happen despite today’s economic uncertainties. While some of these votes occurred in March before we had a sense of the extent or impacts of the pandemic, a number occurred over the summer with similar results.

For example, in Maine, which is heavily reliant on borrowing to fund transportation, voters approved a $105 million statewide bond measure during the state’s July primary, making this the sixth straight year of similar bond measures for transportation (and the 10th approved transportation bond measure in the past 13 years). The transportation bond will help plug the state’s funding shortfall by drawing down $275 million in matching federal and other funds. Most of the funding will go toward road infrastructure projects, while $15 million will be devoted to transit multimodal investments. Again, voters opted to continue funding their current system.

Voters approved new funding for transit in the Cincinnati region and Anchorage

In Hamilton County, home of the Cincinnati metro area, voters passed Issue 7 by a narrow (0.7 percent) margin during their April 28 primary election, approving an historic 0.8 percent sales tax increase for transit. These revenues will fund bus service improvements and transit-supportive infrastructure investments. It is expected to generate roughly $130 million annually, 75 percent of which will go to the Southern Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), with the rest dedicated to road and bridge improvements along transit routes. SORTA will be able to begin implementing the Reinventing Metro plan to provide faster, more frequent service, extended hours, and better rider amenities.

Issue 7’s passage is remarkable—especially during COVID—because it marks the first time county voters have approved a sales tax hike to support transportation improvements or any sort of transit-related tax in nearly 50 years. The initiative had the backing of a strong coalition of local organizations and decision-makers.

Meanwhile, in Anchorage, voters passed Proposition 8 on April 7, approving a $5 million bond for transit and public safety improvements by a 59 percent vote. The bond will fund improvements to the City’s public safety radio network and purchase of cardiac monitors, as well as replacing public transit buses and improving bus stops. Previous transit funding initiatives in Anchorage have generally failed, though the City did pull together funding for a new route in early 2020 (pre-COVID) in response to residents and advocates. Grouping transit and public safety improvements together may have played a role in Proposition 8’s success.

While the results of these two initiatives are promising, it is worth noting that both votes occurred relatively early in the pandemic when many people still thought life might return to normal in a few months. They may not provide an accurate prediction of what will happen in November.

A number of states and localities have delayed or canceled transportation ballot initiatives

A number of localities and states have chosen not to put planned transportation measures on the ballot for their primary or November elections due to COVID uncertainties, citing more pressing priorities related to the pandemic and doubts about whether voters would approve tax increases. Transportation and transit funding votes have been delayed or canceled in Sacramento, San Diego, and the Bay Area in California; Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties in Florida; Bend, Oregon; and several states, including Oregon, New Jersey, and Colorado.

Looking ahead

Despite the uncertainties, a number of transportation funding votes will be going forward in the November election, including several larger initiatives to fund new transit and transportation infrastructure. In this follow-up post, we profile some of the measures we’re watching especially closely leading up to the election.

This is the first in a series of posts we’re writing on 2020 ballot initiatives leading up to the November election. Keep up with T4America by subscribing to our bi-weekly newsletter, the Round-up.

Video: Rural transit agencies warn of devastating service cuts

It’s not just big city transit agencies that are suffering debilitating financial losses due to COVID-19: the pandemic is affecting rural and mid-sized transit agencies to the point where they might have to close their doors—permanently. Agency directors in Oklahoma and Illinois shared about the impacts.

Americans rely on public transportation all over the country—not just in big cities like New York or Chicago. Yet in our own analysis, we found that more than one million households in predominantly rural counties do not have access to a car. That doesn’t include households with one car shared between multiple working adults.

Without transit, these rural households will be stranded. And by failing to include transit in COVID-19 relief packages (aside from yesterday’s House package that included $32 billion for transit, which we hope remains in the bill and is passed by the Senate), Congress is apparently okay with that.

In two new videos released by Transportation for America, rural and mid-sized transit agencies warn of permanently cutting transit service as a result of financial strains from COVID-19. Directors of Little Dixie Transit in southeastern Oklahoma and the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD) in Illinois spoke of how COVID-19 is impacting their riders, employees, and ability to provide robust transit service now and in the future. If Congress doesn’t provide public transportation with at least $32 billion in emergency relief, both agencies will be forced to radically cut service—or even “shut our doors,” as Little Dixie Transit director Jeannie McMillin warned.

Check out short video highlights of the interviews below, and watch the full interview with Champaign-Urbana MTD’s director here.

Tell Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit in the next COVID-19 relief package. House Democrats have tentatively included $32 billion for transit in their latest relief package, but it still has to pass the House—and then the Senate.

Send a message to your members of Congress

Congress, transit needs at least $32 billion. Now.

Public transportation is in an unprecedented crisis, with the double whammy of falling ridership and a contracting economy crushing transit agencies’ budgets. Massive cuts to transit service are imminent if agencies don’t receive the emergency funding they need to survive. There will be no economic recovery if transit evaporates. Congress needs to #SaveTransit.

Join us on Twitter all-day tomorrow (Thursday, September 17) for a #SaveTransit Tweet Storm. Tweet at your member of Congress to #SaveTransit using our social media toolkit, and send an email to your members using our action page.

Public transit is essential to millions of people across the country who rely on it everyday to reach doctor’s appointments, jobs, grocery stores, and other vital services. It’s an elevator of economic mobility, providing access to the economy to those who cannot afford to or can’t drive—including many who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 crisis.

Without transit, millions of Americans will be unable to get to work or find new jobs, potentially trapping them in economic stagnation. Without transit, businesses may not be able to reopen, or have customers to serve. Without transit, our pandemic response—and our hope for a strong economic recovery from this pandemic—vanishes.

Yet Congress has passed zero emergency dollars for transit since the first COVID-19 relief package in March. And that money has already run out for many agencies, due to necessary and expensive measures meant to keep employees and riders safe—at the same time they’re losing funding from decreased fares and local sales taxes.

Congress has hardly even proposed emergency funding for transit. The Senate’s latest COVID-19 relief proposal included zero dollars for transit, and the relief plan passed by the House of Representatives includes only half of what transit needs to survive.

This is unacceptable. Public transit agencies are calling on Congress to provide agencies with at least $32 billion in emergency relief. This critical funding would allow agencies to restore and safely operate the transit service that so many Americans need.

We need you to take action to #SaveTransit. Please, tweet at your member of Congress to #SaveTransit using our social media toolkit, and send an email to your members using our action page.

Want to learn more about the transit crisis? Check out some of our blog posts:

Senate Democrats recommend less driving—as Senate committee approves billions for new roads

The Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis recently released a report recommending key federal actions in each sector to avert the impacts of climate change, incorporating a number of Transportation for America’s recommendations. In fact, the very first recommendation for the transportation sector is to enable Americans to choose walking, biking, or public transportation over driving.

A MUNI light rail train in San Francisco. Photo by Jim Maurer on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

We will never be able to reduce transportation emissions in time to avert catastrophic climate change without also reducing how much people must drive to accomplish daily activities. Federal transportation policy has a huge role to play in that.

Our partners at Third Way recently joined us to discuss why the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee’s transportation reauthorization bill from last summer fell far short of the broad changes needed to address climate change (particularly in contrast to the House’s more recent INVEST Act). While the Senate included a section on climate, their overall approach would actually make climate change worse by preserving the status quo approach that leads to more roads, more driving, and more emissions.

Fortunately some Senators have recently taken a broader view. In late August, the Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis released a climate action report that proposes the kind of paradigm shift that’s needed. The report doesn’t merely go beyond electric vehicles—it leads its transportation section with recommendations on the importance of reducing how much people need to drive by building walkable, transit-served communities where people can live and work in the same area.

Here are three things we were encouraged to see in this plan.

Recognizes the role of land use and sprawl in increasing emissions

It is noteworthy that the transportation section of the Senate’s report begins with a discussion about how land use decisions exacerbate transportation emissions by driving sprawl. That focus is often entirely missing from climate advocates’ and policymakers’ conversations.

As the report notes, through 20th century zoning, most communities have made it illegal to build affordable, multi-family housing near job centers, retail or public transit by restricting those areas only for detached single-family homes. This practice produces spread out car-oriented development and raises the cost to live in desirable areas where walkability and viable alternatives to driving exist. It forces low- and moderate-income commuters to make long drives from suburbs and exurbs, increasing emissions and exacerbating congestion in the process. Simply allowing greater housing density, especially near job and retail centers, can have a profound impact on emissions by reducing how much people need to drive every day.

But this isn’t just a local issue. Federal policy plays an enormous role in local land-use decisions, largely due to the incentives that federal programs—like transportation and housing—often create. The Senate report recommends that the federal government provide significant new funding and financing to promote smart growth, safer streets, and public transportation options. Done right, those strategies can be a potent tool to reduce emissions, while addressing critical issues of equity and housing affordability in the process.

Emphasizes high-quality transit and roadway safety

Providing frequent, reliable transit service will be a crucial step in reducing how much Americans need to drive, yet as the Senate’s report notes, the current approach fails to help make that a reality. The federal government has chronically underfunded transit, particularly transit operations, resulting in a major backlog of repairs and reliability issues caused by decades of neglect that have undercut transit ridership. Federal support for transit is more important than ever, as agencies are spending more to clean transit vehicles, provide personal protective equipment to keep their employees safe, and continue to provide access to work, healthcare, and other necessities for the millions of Americans who rely on transit.

The Senate’s report also explicitly calls out the need to improve safety for pedestrians, especially pedestrians of color. It echoes Transportation for America’s principles, noting that many U.S. roads are designed to move vehicles at the highest speeds possible, with little consideration for walking, biking, or transit. It calls to stop treating pedestrians as an afterthought and explicitly encourage other transportation options for trips under three miles. It recommends adoption of a Complete Streets approach.

Many of the same strategies apply in rural areas

The report also notes that while rural areas have their own challenges, many of the same land-use strategies will still be crucial in those communities. Promoting mixed-use development in existing historic rural downtowns and main streets over office parks and regional malls can have a profound impact on how much people drive, and emit. It can also help leverage rural communities’ unique character, historically significant architecture, and valuable public spaces to promote economic vitality and reduce the risk that these local assets are forsaken in favor of new development on the fringes of the community that is far more expensive to maintain while generating less tax revenue.

The Senate’s report is a good step but more education is needed

It is heartening to see this emphasis in the Senate’s climate report, but it isn’t enough. Reports like this are only meaningful if they actually impact federal transportation policy.

Too many congressional leaders still aren’t seeing the importance of investing in a transportation system that allows people to drive less by making shorter trips, biking, walking, and riding transit possible. While we often hear support in theory, few realize that this means both supporting those types of projects while also opposing projects that add new dangers in the name of letting drivers drive faster. It also means supporting fundamental reform in the federal transportation program that makes walking, biking, and riding transit a priority through funding and policy, at the expense of more money for the status quo road-building approach. Even the Senate’s report arguably downplays the significant role that federal—not just local—policy has played in incentivizing sprawl and increasing how much Americans need to drive, as well as the crucial role federal policy will need to play in making change happen.

We are encouraging advocates to help educate their members of Congress about the real connection between climate and transportation. You can help by:

(1) Sending a letter to your members of Congress explaining why the Senate EPW Committee’s long-term transportation bill is actually bad for the climate. We have a draft letter you can use, which you can find here.

(2) Tweeting at your members of Congress (particularly your Senators) to urge them to pass a climate-friendly transportation bill. You can use our social media toolkit.

(3) Submitting a short letter to the editor to your local newspaper explaining what it takes to truly reduce transportation emissions: investment in a transportation system that makes shorter trips, biking, walking, and riding transit possible.

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.”

Webinar recap: How the Senate’s transportation proposal would make climate change worse

Transportation is the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions, and most of it comes from driving. But a long-term transportation bill passed by a Senate committee last summer would only make this problem worse. Last week, along with Third Way, we discussed the role federal transportation policy plays in making climate change worse—and what a better transportation bill looks like.

Last summer, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed a long-term transportation bill that was, quite frankly, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The bill included a groundbreaking $10 billion for carbon reduction programs (“groundbreaking” simply because no prior transportation law had ever included any climate-related funding), while pouring 27 times that amount into programs that are perfectly designed to increase carbon emissions..

That’s why we teamed up with Third Way to host a webinar debunking the bill’s climate-friendly ethos. Our Policy Director Scott Goldstein and Third Way’s Transportation Policy Advisor Alexander Laska discussed how the Senate bill will just wind up increasing emissions, and what a better long-term transportation bill looks like (psssssh: it looks an awful lot like the bill passed by the House of Representatives this summer).

Here are three of the most frequently-asked questions from the webinar.

Why isn’t electrifying vehicles enough to reduce transportation emissions?

The reason: Americans are driving more than ever, and electrification can’t keep up with the pace of growth. As federal transportation policy and funding encourages more and wider highways, destinations—like housing, businesses, schools and more—get placed physically farther apart from each other to accommodate highways. This results in people living further away from the things they need and the places they go, causing them to drive further and further just to reach everyday destinations, as our former colleague Emily Mangan wrote in this slam dunk of a blog post.

This ever-increasing driving (known as “vehicle miles traveled”, or VMT) is why emissions have increased despite relatively large increases in fuel efficiency standards and the slow-but-steady adoption of electric vehicles thus far. Despite an admirable 35 percent increase in the overall fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet from 1990-2016, emissions still rose by 21 percent. That’s because the total amount of miles traveled increased by 50 percent in that same period.

If we only electrify the fleet but don’t find ways for more people to drive less each day, this trend will continue to go in the wrong direction. And make no mistake, this Senate bill gives states billions in new money for new roads that will just produce more driving.

What role does Congress play in local land use decisions?

The common belief is that land-use decisions are made strictly at the local level, and that the federal government has no role or effect on them. That’s false. Federal policy plays an enormous role in local land use decisions, largely due to the incentives that federal programs create.

In the federal transportation program, 80 percent of funding is set mostly for highways, where the overarching priority is to increase vehicle speed, not to improve safety, not to make it easier to bike or walk, and not to make transit more efficient. As a result, towns and cities make decisions in response to these federal priorities and investments: they’ll widen a highway instead of repairing the existing street network or building a protected bike lane, and decide to zone more land for low-density housing or retail.

Changing federal incentives can have a ripple effect on local land-use decisions. Allowing cities and towns to use transportation dollars to invest in transit operations and maintenance might encourage local governments to make zoning decisions that support those investments: that means denser, walkable neighborhoods and downtowns.

Congress can also unlock more federal funding for equitable transit-oriented development. As we wrote with Third Way in their Transportation and Climate: Federal Policy Agenda, Congress should require that the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) coordinate to leverage billions of dollars in existing loan authority that could support mixed-income, mixed-use development and provide new revenue streams for transit, affordable housing, and local governments.

How can college-aged students and climate activists help amplify the importance of this issue?

There’s a lot that anyone can do to make sure that long-term transportation policy actually reduces carbon emissions.

It’s vitally important that members of Congress understand the connection between transportation and climate change. Anyone can understand that cars pollute the air, but making the next step—that we need to reduce driving, not just electrify it—is something that needs to be explained to many people, particularly our elected officials. The failure to understand this point has been bipartisan.It’s not enough to somehow make every vehicle electric: we also need a transportation system that allows more people to bike, walk, and take transit, as well as take shorter trips in a vehicle. Making marginal changes to yesterday’s transportation policy won’t get us there.

We have a couple of ways you can start educating your members of Congress about the real connection between climate and transportation:

Send a letter to your members of Congress explaining why the Senate EPW Committee’s long-term transportation bill is actually really bad for the climate. We have a draft letter you can use, which you can find here.
Tweet at your members of Congress (particularly your Senators) to urge them to pass a climate-friendly transportation bill. You can use our social media toolkit.
Submit a short letter to the editor to your local newspaper explaining what it takes to truly reduce transportation emissions: investment in a transportation system that makes shorter trips, biking, walking, and riding transit possible.

How transit agencies are keeping workers and riders safe

As we slowly settle into a new normal, transit agencies across the country are making big changes to their operations to keep employees and riders safe. We checked in with our transit agency members across the country to see how they’re adapting to COVID-19 and what they need to keep going.

A transit rider wearing a mask on the Washington, DC Metro. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

It’s been almost six months since COVID-19 radically altered our lives, and public transportation remains both vital and in a major crisis. The pandemic has shattered transit agencies’ funding sources, with necessary shutdowns and social distancing measures depleting revenue from fares and sales taxes.

It was already a perpetual challenge for agencies to keep trains and buses operating in pre-pandemic times, thanks to limited federal funding and a national transportation program that prioritizes driving over all other modes. But the added (and costly) challenge of keeping transit employees and riders safe from contracting COVID-19 has made operating transit safely and efficiently even more challenging. Transit agencies across the country are announcing major cuts to service, a consequence of plummeting revenues.

Transit agencies have a vital role in connecting people to jobs, healthcare, grocery stores and other essential services. Here’s what Transportation for America’s transit members are doing to keep employees and riders safe and connected to the things they need—and what will happen if the transit industry doesn’t receive at least $32 billion in emergency relief from the federal government.

Innovating on the fly

With limited federal guidance, transit agencies across the country often acted on their own to implement COVID-19 safety measures. Many transit agencies decided to suspend fare collection to reduce contact between riders and bus operators, and only allow rear-door bus boarding and install plexiglass shields at bus operators’ seats for the same reason.

Both Mountain Line (Missoula, MT) and DART (Des Moines, IA) began running “plug buses”—running two buses in tandem—to provide riders with more space to social distance on buses. Mountain Line, Pierce Transit (Tacoma, WA), and the Sacramento Regional Transit District also parked some of their buses to create community WiFi hotspots, providing another service essential to weathering the COVID-19 crisis, especially for students lacking internet service at home to continue their studies remotely.

Spending more than ever

Most transit agencies are spending more than they ever have on cleaning transit vehicles and personal protective equipment to keep their employees safe. Pierce Transit hired temporary employees to increase sanitizing buses. King County Metro (Seattle, WA) committed to cleaning buses every night, with special attention paid to ensuring the safety of cleaning staff. Most transit agencies acquired sanitizing wipes, hand sanitizer, and washable masks for employees—but struggled with procuring these essential items in the early days of the pandemic.

Cleaning isn’t the only category increasing costs—many transit agencies are giving employees more paid leave to ensure the health of themselves and their families. DART found that many of its bus operators fall into high-risk health categories, causing the agency to increase leave for high-risk employees and employees dealing with childcare issues as a result of school closures. Pierce Transit also allowed high-risk employees to take four to five weeks of leave, and took advantage of the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act to provide employees with an additional 80 hours of paid leave for childcare. That’s good for employees, but it has also left some agencies without enough workers to provide essential service.

Without federal emergency relief, transit can’t go on

The double whammy of increased costs and decreasing revenue is slamming transit agencies—to the point where if they don’t receive emergency relief soon, they’ll have to drastically reduce service (or even cease to exist). While March’s CARES Act provided some relief ($25 billion in operating support), the financial hole public transportation is falling into has gotten much, much larger—at least $32 billion.

Transit agencies across the country are calling for at least $32 billion in emergency relief from the federal government, but Congress isn’t listening. Senate Republicans’ most recent COVID-19 relief proposal didn’t include any emergency funding for transit, and the House Democrats HEROES Act provided less than half of what transit needs. And both chambers of Congress are no closer to reaching any agreement whatsoever on a desperately needed relief package to provide support for transit, unemployment, the Payroll Protection Program, or other critical mechanisms for supporting Americans during this economic crisis.

Without transit, millions of people across the country will lose access to essential jobs, healthcare, and grocery stores—in the middle of a major, deadly pandemic. Losing transit service also erodes the prospect of any long-term economic recovery, with limited and infrequent transit service unable to connect people to opportunities and essential services they need.

Congress must include at least $32 billion in emergency operating relief for public transportation in the next COVID-19 relief bill, or leave your constituents stranded.

Tell Congress that they needed to pass emergency relief for transit yesterday. Email your members of Congress using our action page and tweet at your Congressional delegation to #SaveTransit using our social media toolkit.

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.

A bipartisan transportation bill isn’t always good: but it can be

Last summer, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a transportation bill lauded by both sides of the aisle. While the bill was indeed bipartisan, it does great damage to the priorities of both the Democrats and Republicans. Our director Beth Osborne explains why bipartisanship on its own doesn’t make a bill good, and how it’s possible to create a transportation bill that achieves both parties’ objectives.

“Blue Skies over the Capitol.” Photo by John Brighenti on Flickr’s Creative Commons

Transportation is the only sector where Democrats and Republicans enthusiastically and bipartisanly agree to undermine their own goals. While Republicans say their priority is to reduce demand for federal spending, avoid wasteful spending and efficiently move goods to market, the current program and the bill they passed fails to do so. While Democrats claim to want to create jobs, reduce emissions, and build a strong and fair economy, the current program and the bill they passed fails to do so. Still these laws have achieved one thing: bipartisanship.

It’s amazing that lawmakers can fail to achieve both parties’ goals in one bipartisan bill. It is obvious why in these divided times, members of Congress would seek and embrace an opportunity for bipartisanship. But is bipartisanship good if it is accomplished by trading so many of your priorities—your reasons for being in office—for an agreement that just makes our country’s problems worse?

In fairness, there are successes both sides can point to. The Democrats can say they are creating jobs even if they aren’t creating as many as they could. The Republicans can say they are reducing regulation even if they are only reducing some parts of the environmental review and permitting processes (and not always the most onerous parts). Both can say they are fixing our crumbling infrastructure even if there is no requirement to do so—which is why that federal funding is often spent on road expansions (that we can’t afford to maintain) instead.

Why is this? First, unlike most other federal programs, lawmakers don’t have to justify funding the transportation program annually because it’s paid for by a trust fund. Money moves out to states, metropolitan planning organizations and transit agencies every year whether the annual spending bills are passed or not. When you don’t have to think about a program but every six or so years, it is hardly surprising that most members of Congress don’t fully understand how it works or what might need to change.

Second, passing these bills leads to a lot of praise from the industry that will make a lot of money from it. The press covers all the money coming home, and often little else. The eventual spending leads to ribbon cuttings, which provides even more good press—even if that infrastructure is fated to fall into disrepair for the same reasons we have a repair problem today.

Transportation is more complicated and nuanced than we appreciate. Building new roads and bridges doesn’t always make travel faster or more convenient—it often makes travel worse and creates hardship on the communities they touch. And investing in maintenance and transit operations actually creates more jobs than new road and bridge construction projects.

It’s time for Democrats and Republicans—and more of the press—to think about what a transportation program can and should achieve: access to jobs for rich and poor, a safe travel environment for those in and out of a car, and a well-maintained system. None of these goals are partisan. Democrats and Republicans may come to each priority for slightly different reasons, but there is a new bipartisanship that can emerge around creating a better transportation system if we just look at what we are building and not just how much we can build.

We can follow the lead of two junior members of the House—Representatives Jesús “Chuy” García (a Democrat) and Mike Gallagher (a Republican)—who are both freshmen members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. With the current transportation program expiring this September, the Committee had a chance to rethink long-term transportation policy and came up with a proposal that included a fix-it-first approach. Representatives García and Gallagher did something unusual: they considered the continuing problem in solving our transportation maintenance problems and connected policy to spending to solve that problem. The two Congressmen submitted an amendment to the reauthorization bill, called the INVEST Act, to require that states spend funding on maintenance before building new roads, which was then adopted unanimously.

Prioritizing maintenance over road expansion is a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans: Democrats reduce carbon emissions from unnecessary road building, Republicans spend taxpayer dollars responsibly by reducing our future liabilities, and both parties create more jobs—more than would be created from new road construction. This is bipartisanship to praise.

The Senate bill does not include this approach, allowing states and regions to build infrastructure they cannot afford to maintain while they are failing to maintain their existing system. But it is bipartisan! This is bipartisanship to shake your head at. The Senate needs to do better. And we all should recognize that bipartisanship can be a cover for failure to think deeply about a program and an excuse to avoid improvement.

Transit agencies, riders, unions, and members of Congress rally to save transit

Last week, a diverse group of transit stakeholders advocated for at least $32 billion in federal emergency funding for public transportation during a virtual rally. Scores of transit riders, transit agency executives, union leaders and members of Congress made it clear that transit won’t survive this crisis without help.

Transit needs your help. Here’s what you can do.

Public transit is essential and facing a financial crisis. We need to keep the pressure on Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit.

(1) Email and call your members of Congress. Your Congressional delegation needs to hear from you. Use our action page to send an email to your members of Congress, and then follow-up with a call using this script.

(2) Tweet #SaveTransit today. We’re joining with the Save Public Transit Rally organizers this Tuesday to make #SaveTransit trend. Use our social media toolkit to tweet (and tag your members of Congress) in support of at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit.

Senate Republicans’ most recent COVID-19 relief proposal didn’t include any emergency funding for public transportation (at a time when transit is in crisis) and the House Democrats HEROES Act provided less than half of what transit needs. With budgets in freefall, transit agencies across the country are making drastic cuts to service, severing millions of people from access to essential jobs, healthcare and grocery stores—all during a deadly pandemic. These cuts erode the prospect of any long-term economic recovery, with limited and infrequent transit service unable to connect people to opportunities and essential services they need.

That’s why transit agencies, riders, union leaders, and members of Congress came together last week to explain why transit agencies need at least $32 billion in emergency relief.

Click through to take action to save transit.

At the Save Public Transit Rally, transit executives and riders from Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco joined forces with the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, the Transport Workers Union, Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Van Hollen (MD), and Representatives Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-4) and Jerry Nadler (NY-10) to resoundingly support at least $32 billion in emergency relief for public transit. The rally, available to watch in full here, was organized by Transportation for America, the Riders Alliance of New York, and Alliance for a Just Society, 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.”

What made the rally especially powerful was that transit riders spoke before the leader of their transit agency and explained how critical transit is to their life.

“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.”

There are thousands of essential workers and riders like Judy across the country. By choosing not to act, Congress is stranding Americans who rely on transit each day and hampering any future recovery. But it’s not too late for Congress to pass the assistance that our nation’s transit systems need to keep running through and after the pandemic.

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