Skip to main content

The House bill needs some changes to make repair the number one priority

UPDATE, June 17: A bipartisan amendment to fix the issues we detailed below was accepted by unanimous consent in the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Thank you Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García, and Rep. Mike Gallagher for your tremendous support and leadership. View our amendment tracker for the INVEST act here, get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

The House’s new INVEST Act made a strong effort to prioritize maintenance, but there are still loopholes that can allow states and metro areas to avoid the legislative intent of a real, concrete focus on repair first. Here’s a run down on our concerns with the repair provision and how it could be strengthened in next week’s markup in the House transportation committee.

Flickr photo of bridge resurfacing by WSDOT. https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/49921039787

We’ve spent 60-plus years building an unparalleled highway system with hundreds of thousands of bridges, in addition to scores of metropolitan transit networks and a network of other streets. But we have failed to steward our assets well. For no good reason at all, we’re still spending money like it’s 1956, expending money we don’t have to build roads we can’t afford to maintain which fail to bring the promised economic returns—all while neglecting repair needs. Liberals have supported and aggressively funded the status quo, ignoring the transportation program’s impact on climate, public health, and access to opportunity. Conservatives have joined them, failing to take a stand for bedrock values of good stewardship of federal dollars and keeping federal spending low. We must make repair and maintenance the core, number one priority of the federal transportation program. We cannot afford to keep expanding our system without any plan for maintaining it.

When we first read through the INVEST Act last week we were excited to see that the committee clearly made a good faith effort to prioritize maintenance and after a cursory look we were inclined to give it a passing grade on our first principle of prioritizing repair. But the deeper we looked into the language, the more we saw the loopholes.

It is indeed a major change that the committee proposes dedicating 20 percent of the two biggest sources of state DOT funds toward repair. In addition, states have to fulfill some new conditions to add new capacity with the largest highway program. Both are good steps and we applaud them. However, the INVEST Act’s fix-it-first language still needs to be strengthened to ensure a true focus on prioritizing repairing what we have before building new things that come with expensive, long-term repair costs. There were three misses in the House’s approach, but all can be fixed if the House is truly committed to ensuring that we preserve and maintain our existing transportation network.

1) Too many definitions are either missing, or too vaguely defined

Because the committee left a lot of the vital details to the USDOT Secretary to determine via regulatory language, the final verdict on repair won’t be decided in the legislation (as it should). As an example, for states to add new capacity with core highway funds, they have to fulfill three conditions: They have to demonstrate that they are making progress on repair, they have to consider operational improvements and transit and show that expanding roadway capacity is more cost-effective than either, and they have to demonstrate that the expansion project would meet another performance target, like congestion reduction.

Those three terms in italics will be left up to the USDOT rulemaking process, and can already have a long history of being manipulated to add new capacity. It would help to put more explicit parameters on what defines “progress on repair.” Does it mean meeting the state or MPO’s own repair targets, which could be unambitious? And when it comes to measuring cost-effectiveness and benefit cost analysis, the way these have been applied to transportation projects in the past have overstated the benefits of highway capacity expansions and undervalued or failed to value climate, equity and public health benefits. 

2) To truly prioritize repair, states should prove they can maintain the new things they build

Even if states fulfill these conditions above to add new capacity, there’s no language requiring the project sponsor to prove they can maintain the asset they are building. This is a big miss, and this is one of the primary reasons we’re all in this mess in the first place.

Even if states make valuable and measurable progress on state of good repair, it would be negligent to allow them to build new things without requiring that they consider and plan for how they will take care of them. You don’t buy a house when you manage to secure some of the upfront costs (a downpayment), you also have to prove to the bank that you have a plan for paying that monthly mortgage for the next 15 or 30 years. We already require transit capital project sponsors to provide a plan for long-term maintenance when they apply for federal funding. It’s time to start requiring this degree of stewardship and responsibility to a highway program that has been sorely lacking it. Simply adding this as a core requirement to the conditions for expansion via an amendment could bring about this powerful change. 

3) All the tools the states have to fulfill this repair focus were designed to justify new highways

The biggest challenge here is that the House is counting on an entrenched culture that was organized around the building and expanding a national highway system to accomplish something entirely new. The tools that transportation agencies have at their disposal—the ones the House is asking them to use to fulfill this new focus on repair—were developed specifically to justify new highways. Without other changes, they will continue to do so. 

The transportation demand models assume the same amount of driving in a neighborhood built only for cars as they do for a neighborhood built for walking. These models do not foresee that making space on a highway might invite more driving in the space cleared up. They often predict, strangely, that narrowing a lane in the city from 12 to 10 feet somehow means that the road can accommodate fewer 6-7 feet wide vehicles. These tools are old, flawed and often wrong. Comparing costs and benefits is a great idea, but we need to make clear that the benefits should be calculated in a way that is reasonably likely to be correct. And that can be done by simply asking the agencies to look back and report on how often their projections actually turn out to be right when making a justification for a massive new investment with taxpayer dollars.

We are hopeful that we’ll be able to report news of a specific amendment to make many of these fixes when the committee considers the bill, so stay tuned. We will need your support!

Wrapping up

If infrastructure is as bipartisan as everyone always claims then commonsense should prevail on this point. Republicans should care deeply about conserving taxpayer funds. Democrats should care about climate and equity impacts. Both should seek to maintain faith and public trust in the program. Strengthening these repair provisions should be an easy, bipartisan win and we urge Chairman DeFazio and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members to make it happen.

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

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

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

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

Capital investment

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

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

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

Operating support

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

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

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

Amtrak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CDC quietly revises their guidance to encourage people to use transit safely

Two weekends ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly revised their guidance for using public transportation after an outpouring of criticism from Transportation for America, NACTO, TransitCenter, the American Public Transportation Association, and others that the CDC was contradicting years of their own guidance that encouraging more driving incurs massive public health costs in pollution, respiratory illnesses, obesity, and preventable traffic deaths.

We will eventually get more of the country back to work as the pandemic subsides (in some places, even as it likely springs back in others.) Some parts of the country are already reopening in phases. But when we do start things up again, we will need public transportation to continue moving millions of people. And as we have throughout the pandemic, the country will look to the CDC for advice.

Yet, when the CDC first issued their guidance for public transit their lone, astonishing recommendation for employers of people who commute using public transportation was to offer those employees incentives encouraging them to drive and park, and allow flexible hours to commute when it’s less busy. Needless to say, we were aghast. As Beth Osborne, T4America director, told E&E last week in a story about the updated guidance, “I find responding to this guidance so frustrating and befuddling, I don’t know where to start.”

As former NYC DOT head Janette Sadik-Khan chimed in along those same lines, “The CDC telling workers to drive alone assumes that everyone owns a car and that cities can handle the traffic. This is a fever dream.  There’s no reopening cities w/o reopening transit. Ruling it out doesn’t make it safer.”

Scores of public letters were written to CDC. And then rather quietly two weekends ago, the CDC made some notable and encouraging changes to that guidance.

What changed?

They have added “if feasible” to that first part, as well as expanding upon the kinds of transportation that help avoid close contact like biking, walking, or riding with other household members. But much more importantly, rather than just urging transit riders to start driving—which is not possible for millions of Americans, would destroy our cities, and (by CDC’s own admission) would make air pollution worse and traffic fatalities increase—they direct employees to read other valuable guidance CDC has produced on protecting yourself on transportation. That guidance could also use some improvements but it’s at least they are pointing to practical advice for helping riders use transit and stay safe doing so as the country reopens.

CDC still needs to go further on transportation, such as encouraging drivers to clean their cars to make carpooling safe, providing more (new, quick, flexible) facilities for bike parking, petitioning cities to create new safe space for biking/walking, but this was an important recognition by CDC of the ways that their previous guidance actually contradicted their own incredibly valuable, decades-long work to help address health by encouraging more walking, more biking, and more transit use in metro areas across the country.

As TransitCenter has been documenting, other affected countries (Japan, South Korea, and even France.) have restored all or part of their transit service and have seen passenger counts return to pre-pandemic levels, all without an outbreak. It’s clearly possible to bring transit back safely, and CDC should be the ones helping to make this possible.

Our cities won’t function without it.

As the struggle in New York is already demonstrating—the mayor with social distancing vs. the MTA with universal mask-wearing—even with better guidance from the CDC (which they should still improve), it can still be a battle because of jurisdictional issues endemic to transit, which is rarely controlled by one city or locality. These changes are a good step but the CDC should be leading the charge with good recommendations that also weigh the relative short- and long-term risks of safely reopening transit systems and encouraging riders to return vs. millions more cars on the road.

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


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

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

1) Puts climate change at the center to reduce emissions

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

2) Climate isn’t confined to a single section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6) Connects housing and transportation

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

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

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

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

7) A few other exciting new programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read our full statement about the bill here.

1) Takes steps to prioritize maintenance across the board

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

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

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

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

2) Institutes a comprehensive approach to safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The score:

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

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

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

press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

New and expanded transit projects may not get built

City and state budget deficits and a drastic decline in transit ridership have pushed transit agencies to the brink of collapse. Communities that were on the verge of expanding or building new transit may not be able to finance their projects if Congress doesn’t act.

Transit agencies across the country are facing huge operating and budget losses. While transit agencies are still operating to provide essential service, they are on track to lose billions this year due to revenue dwindling as a result of dramatically reduced ridership, increased cleaning costs, diminished local tax receipts, and other impacts from a contracting economy.

This has had a predictable impact on service, with every agency in the country making changes to reflect the drops in ridership. But also at risk are plans to expand or build new transit that have been in the works for years. These new services would yield significant mobility and economic benefits for communities in the years to come, but only if they can get off the ground.

Communities of all sizes apply to the federal Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program in order to secure federal funding for new or expanded transit projects—subway systems, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. Participating in the CIG program requires significant local political and financial commitment and years of dedicated work. But even with that comparatively high bar, there is still great demand for this funding, with over $23 billion in requests from projects currently waiting in the CIG “pipeline” for federal funding.

To access funding, Congress has recently required local communities to come up with at least 50 percent of the total cost, and under this administration, FTA has sought to make local communities pay even more. For many CIG projects, the local match comes from tax revenue and local community budgets. In many cases, communities have gone to the ballot to increase taxes to pay for these transit projects.

Now, all those carefully laid plans and contingencies could be for naught in light of the gaping hole that’s suddenly appeared in many municipal budgets—a 50 percent (or greater) local match could become an insurmountable challenge. Even projects that were on the verge of receiving a grant could see their “overall project rating” downgraded, which would prevent them from receiving a grant and delay critical projects which support jobs today, and long term economic development tomorrow.

Boosting CIG to create jobs

Back in March, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Emergency Security (CARES) Act, a $2 trillion relief package that gives transit agencies $25 billion in emergency relief. While providing transit operating support, as the CARES Act did, will continue to be important to keep transit running and allow service to rebound as economies reopen, ensuring that capital projects receive adequate federal support will spur our economic recovery in the long run. Transit is a job creator, and investing in CIG projects means investing in jobs in local communities and in the manufacturing sector across the country. The supply chain for public transportation touches every corner of the country and employs thousands of Americans who produce tracks, seats, windows, communications equipment, wheels, and everything else in between. More than 2,000 manufacturing facilities and companies are tied directly to the manufacture or supply of new transit systems and repairs and upgrades to existing systems.

Every $1 billion invested in public transit creates more than 50,000 jobs and economic returns of $3.7 billion over 20 years. And during the 2009 stimulus, we found that dollar for dollar, “public transportation produced 70 percent more job hours” than funds spent on highways.

Further, access to transit has proven to be critical to economic development, and any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to help people get back to work after this unprecedented crisis subsides. Companies of all sizes are relocating to or deciding to start up in walkable downtowns and communities with transit to ensure access to a high quality workforce. Communities designed around transit are desirable for workers and businesses, which will boost economic growth and support our economic recovery.

Investments in transit create jobs directly, and lay the foundation for long term economic prosperity.

What Congress can do

Congress has already stepped up to help transit agencies get through the beginning of this crisis by providing operating support in the CARES Act, and while transit agencies need additional operating support, we must also think about other important challenges facing transit.

To support local community demands for transit, and job creation today while supporting the conditions for job creation tomorrow, we need CIG, and to save CIG, Congress must:

  • Provide no less than the FY19 funding level of $2.55 billion and $3.1527 billion in FY21 if Congress enacts the proposals below.
  • Eliminate the local match for new CIG projects for projects that demonstrate an inability to cover the cost of the local match.
  • Retroactively eliminate the local match for existing projects that demonstrate an inability to cover the cost of the local match.
  • Prevent FTA from changing overall project ratings due to changes in local commitments or ridership projections.

A proposal for the long-term transportation reauthorization released by U.S. House Democrats on June 3 would address a number of these points, at least partially. There’s nearly $1 billion for emergency CIG support in the first year and a delay in payment for local matches. The bill would also allow a 30 percent increase in the federal share of project funding (for a total of up to 80 percent) for new projects and projects that received their grant as far back as 2017.

These actions would reduce strain on local community budgets, allow them to proceed with building transit, and give USDOT the resources to fund more projects. In the long-term, this would ensure more robust transit service and greater access to jobs and services. But in the short-term, it would create jobs and put Americans to work. It would allow projects to continue to move through the “pipeline” and eventually receive funding.

What transit agencies can do

As we wrote recently, transit agencies need to track and publicize how COVID-19 is impacting their agency. They should quantify the impacts of low ridership and of keeping service running for essential workers and document stories from personnel and riders to make the case for continued federal funding and local support.

Tell Congress what your agency needs and what your experience of waiting for CIG funds has been like. Congress needs to hear that there is continued demand for CIG funding and sustained local support to continue expanding transit.

And most importantly, continue to engage with local advocates and riders. Ask them to call their elected officials to explain how important transit is, and how transformational new or expanded transit in the community could be.

“Shovel-ready” projects just dig a deeper hole

Investing in “shovel-ready” projects—projects that are allegedly ready to go but just lacking funding—is an attractive idea for stimulating job growth. But as we learned in the 2009 stimulus, “shovel-ready” projects often aren’t all that shovel-ready, are frequently old road projects designed for the needs of the last century, fail to create jobs, and won’t help us build a safer, cleaner, and more equitable transportation system.

“Shovel-ready” was a good candidate for phrase of the year back in 2009, as the federal government put together a massive stimulus package to jumpstart the economy during the Great Recession. Elected leaders from both parties were enamored with the idea of pumping billions of dollars into so-called shovel-ready projects, putting millions of Americans back to work in the process. On paper it seemed like a great idea—except it didn’t really work. As Congress faces a new economic crisis from COVID-19, talk of “shovel-ready” infrastructure investment is starting to creep into the discourse again. 

It would be wise to just stop it.

First, “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” as President Obama reflected in late 2010, after championing “shovel-ready” infrastructure spending early in his first term. The Federal Highway Administration doesn’t even use the term. When all was said and done after the Recovery Act, it was pretty clear that most “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects took months or years to get off the ground, versus the days that the Obama administration was hoping for at the time. 

Second, even if we could throw billions at highway projects—the thing the federal transportation program was (and still is) designed to pour money into most rapidly—those projects won’t create the most jobs or deliver the greatest return on investment. In fact, of all the ways you could invest in infrastructure, new road construction is the least effective category for creating new jobs. If the goal of a stimulus is to create jobs, then investing in “shovel-ready” projects won’t do it. 

Take for example the Alabama Northern Beltline project—a 52-mile proposed highway that would circumvent Birmingham at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion—that’s been on the books for decades. Slated for completion in 2054, nearly three decades away, it’s a good poster child for what “shovel-ready” often looks like with one, unfinished 1.3-mile section of it built and $155 million spent before Alabama ran out of state and federal money and the work stopped. This ill-conceived dinosaur of a project might employ some people, and it’s certainly a hole for us to sink money into, but it will also lead to more pollution, more driving, and only further entrench systemic inequities in our transportation system that COVID-19 has laid bare for all to see. But if our goal is to build back better—to meet pressing needs, employ more people, and create a more resilient society—this project, and “shovel-ready” projects like it, are not the answer.

Just because a project is supposedly “shovel-ready” doesn’t mean that it will meet today’s needs or make any long-term sense.

Ready for a different kind of infrastructure investment

Last month we released a short report—Learning From the 2009 Recovery Act—that provided six lessons learned from the last stimulus and six recommendations for the next. When it comes to creating jobs, we found that investments in public transportation “produced 70 percent more job hours” than equal investments in road projects. And while the 2009 stimulus prohibited populous (>200,000) areas from spending any money on transit operations, that’s an urgent need right now in rural and urban areas alike and would produce the most jobs of any infrastructure spending. Funding transit operations is essentially 100 percent jobs, allowing transit agencies to avoid layoffs, hire more workers for ramped-up cleaning, and run more buses and trains to prevent crowding. If Congress wants to produce more jobs, let’s invest in operations for existing transit. “Operations-ready” if you will, no shovel required.

Beyond transit operations, we found “transit preventive maintenance had by far the highest direct job-per-dollar result, followed by rail car purchase and rehabilitation, transit infrastructure, and bus purchase and rehabilitation.” Similarly, there is a huge unmet need here, with an estimated $98 billion backlog in deferred transit maintenance and replacement according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. “Repair-ready” transit projects would create much needed jobs and address urgent needs that “shovel-ready” funding likely would not.

Repairing our roads, bridges and other infrastructure can also create jobs, but only if Congress actually stipulates that funds are spent on repair. “Crumbling infrastructure” is the rhetoric that’s always used to plead for more infrastructure money but then repair is mostly neglected once the money arrives in state DOT coffers. Time and again, including in the 2009 stimulus, when Congress has given states the flexibility to spend funds on repairing roads and bridges or building new roads, the vast majority choose to build new roads instead. 

Every roadway repair project is also an opportunity to identify safety issues, particularly for the most vulnerable users, and make improvements. Most roadways today are designed for speed, not safety, resulting in the carnage that we see on our roads every year. But many localities are interested in redesigning roads to make them safer. And in the era of COVID-19, many localities are also redistributing public road space, opening it up for people that need more space to move while physically distancing. These redesigns can often be achieved with nothing more than plastic posts, potted plants, and paint, and usually lean on the existing transportation, bike/ped, or other mobility plans that localities have adopted. Supporting these “paint-ready” efforts can help us create more livable communities while improving our existing infrastructure.

Rainbow Crosswalk at Christopher Street and 7th Avenue in celebration of NYC pride month Manhattan

Focusing on some mythical “shovel-ready” projects for any future stimulus is an unwise use of public funds, and Congress must ensure that funds actually accomplish their goals, such as creating the most new jobs, actually addressing the repair backlog, improving safety and access, and building infrastructure that will support a long-term recovery.

We need a new way of thinking

It is time for change, but that will only happen if Congress learns from the past and uses the possibility of any stimulus (and the certainty of upcoming transportation legislation) to support different kinds of projects.

We want safer projects—streets that will save lives with slower speeds that are safer for people walking, biking, and rolling. We need cleaner projects—the transportation sector is the largest source of carbon pollution and a major source of other air pollutants that harm public health. We need more equitable projects—Black Americans are dying at disproportionate rates from COVID-19, due (in part) to decades of higher exposure to transportation-related pollution. 

We should not use the need for a quick economic stimulus as an excuse to speed up poorly-conceived projects designed in the last century—projects that will fail to serve our needs today and tomorrow.

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

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

By David C. Lipscomb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning from COVID-19: Connecting with the research community

Photo from the Transportation Research Board / National Academy of Sciences

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

By Stephanie Dock, AICP, and Katherine Kortum, PhD, PE 

The research community is quickly engaging to help understand and evaluate responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Practitioner and researcher collaboration will improve our understanding of what has worked and what has not, and how we might change our curbside in the longer term—whether for pandemic responses or for everyday operations in the coming “new normal.”

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has coordinated and undertaken research for decades. While TRB’s completed research efforts are not specific to COVID-19, prior research is valuable for planning and responding now. Transportation in the Face of Communicable Disease details research on response strategies, transporting essential personnel, communicating clearly during a public health crisis, and more.

TRB launched its “Research Needs Statement Express” to rapidly capture the questions and research ideas generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This call for submissions recognizes the need to engender collaboration faster than the typical formal process for developing research ideas. TRB is also partnering with the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and others to develop and soon publish pandemic-related research needs for all transportation modes.

Finally, TRB is developing workshops to help determine questions (and some answers!) in specific areas. Summer 2020 will likely include a summit on scenario planning for transit and shared mobility during the COVID-19 recovery and in 2021, TRB and the European Commission will jointly hold a research summit on COVID-19 effects on transportation. 

Academic researchers bring analytical approaches and resources municipal and private sector partners can look to complement their efforts, including:

  • Peer review network to collaborate and objectively vet research.
  • Student researchers (the next generation of transportation professionals), who bring energy and ideas.
  • Capacity to conduct objective, mutli-disciplinary research and analysis through course projects or faculty research.

Examples of academic research underway or projects supporting evaluation of mobility networks during this pandemic include:

Watch for more studies in TRB’s Research in Progress database. For ideas on who to contact for collaboration, start with USDOT’s directory of University Transportation Centers.

Strong partnerships among municipalities, the private sector, and academia are key to offering support and transformative solutions in our pandemic response. 

Stephanie Dock, AICP, manages the research program for the District Department of Transportation in Washington, DC.

Katherine Kortum, PhD, PE, is a senior program officer at the Transportation Research Board in Washington, DC. 

Over 160 sign letter in support of $32 billion for transit, but the fight isn’t over

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a COVID-19 relief bill that only included $15 billion in emergency support for public transportation. That’s not nearly enough; and it’s why over 160 organizations and elected officials signed our letter in support of $32 billion for transit on short notice. But we still need you to take action.

Public transportation is on life support. Without at least $32 billion in additional emergency funding, transit agencies can’t keep their workers healthy or safely return to service when this pandemic subsides. That’s why over 160 organizations and elected officials quickly signed our letter urging Congress to pass $32 billion for transit with less than 48 hours’ notice.

But the fight isn’t yet won. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a COVID-19 relief bill—the HEROES Act—that only includes $15 billion in emergency operating support for public transportation. That’s a start, but it’s insufficient for the scale of the crisis. We know that transit needs more, which is why we’re also calling on individuals to send a message to their members of Congress

Take action

A coalition of transit-related unions and transit agencies in New York City, San Francisco, New Jersey, and Atlanta have estimated that transit programs across the country will need an additional $32 billion through the end of 2021. In March, research group TransitCenter estimated that transit agencies would experience losses between $26-$38 billion this year due to impacts from COVID-19. Agencies are predicting losses that far outstrip the one-time emergency funding they received in March from the federal government. 

As the HEROES Act stalls on Capitol Hill, we need you to send a message to your congressional delegation: the next COVID-19 relief package must include $32 billion for transit.

If we don’t act now, millions of Americans—including millions of essential workers, such as nurses and grocery clerks—will lose access to jobs, healthcare, and other critical services. And any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to help people safely get back to work as this unprecedented crisis subsides. We can’t afford for transit to stop running, or be unable to pick up when the economy does. We need Congress to act. Send your message today!

More than one million households without a car in rural America need better transit

Many people think the only Americans regularly relying on transit to reach jobs and services live in big cities. Yet the majority of counties with high rates of zero-car households are rural. In fact, more than one million households in predominantly rural counties do not have access to a vehicle. Rural Americans without cars face unique barriers and they deserve a tailored approach to their transit needs rather than just assuming they can or will drive everywhere.

Transit agencies have been hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis, and rural transit providers are no exception. Before the pandemic, most were already operating on narrow margins with tenuous funding from local tax revenues that are now rapidly dwindling. Many of these providers were already stretched thin, serving multiple counties over large geographic areas with a small staff of part-time drivers.

The Director of the Oklahoma Transit Association Mark Nestlen said it well in a recent Vice article:

Congress never sat down at the table and said ‘let’s develop a rural transit program. What should it look like?’ They sat down at a table and said, ‘here’s the urban transit program…we’re going to have everything be the same and just put it in rural,’” he said. “When you do that, you’re going to put a square peg into a round hole.

While rural transit services are often costly to operate—particularly demand-response services, which allow individuals to arrange a ride to and from specific locations rather than operating on a fixed route—they are absolutely essential for families and older residents with no other means to reach healthcare, groceries, and other crucial services. To better understand this need, we used the latest American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates to look at how many households in every county nationwide do not have access to a car, and what other difficulties rural carless households might disproportionately face.

The majority of counties with high rates of zero-car households are rural

More than one million rural households do not have access to a car, according to this latest ACS data. On a national level, the majority of households without a car are in urban counties (as are the majority of people), but the rates aren’t as different as you might expect: on average, about nine percent of households in urban counties do not have access to a car, compared to approximately six percent of households in primarily rural counties. And while most of the counties with the highest rates of carless households unsurprisingly are in big cities like New York City, Baltimore, San Francisco, New Orleans, and the District of Columbia, the majority of counties with overall high rates of zero-car households are in fact rural.

Based on the latest ACS data, there are 292 counties in the U.S. where at least 10 percent of households don’t have access to a car (out of 3,142 total counties nationwide). Of those 292 counties, 56 percent of them are majority rural. These 164 rural counties are primarily located in Kentucky, West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alaska. There are pockets of rural America where a disproportionately large share of residents are completely reliant on transit, deliveries, or help from neighbors to access basic necessities, like Wolfe County, Kentucky, and Allendale County, South Carolina, where more than 20 percent of households don’t have access to a car.

Households in those counties also face other challenges likely exacerbated by low car ownership and underfunded transit

A deeper look at data for those 164 rural counties paints a troubling picture: most of them also have few or no intensive care unit (ICU) beds, meaning residents with health emergencies (such as COVID-19) must travel to a neighboring county. Rural areas around the country have seen a wave of hospital closures over the past decade—more than 120 closures nationwide as of February 2020. Cross-referencing Census data with data from Kaiser Health News indicates rural counties nationwide have significantly fewer ICU beds per person available than urban counties: about one ICU bed for every 7,000 residents on average in rural counties compared to one bed for every 4,000 residents in urban counties.

Of the 164 rural counties we identified with especially high rates of no-car households, 119 don’t have a single ICU bed. And some of those counties don’t even have a single hospital—like Knott County, Kentucky, and Lee County, Arkansas, where 12.6 percent and 16.3 percent of households don’t have access to a vehicle, respectively.

This points to some of the glaring problems with how our national surface transportation program handles rural transit like an add-on rather than a well-conceived program created to meet different needs than transit in a big city. People in rural America must travel longer distances for basic necessities, including groceries, banks, schools, and (especially important today) medical care. Because rural hospitals have been shrinking and closing, getting to a hospital for a job or for medical care requires an even longer trip. This makes rural transit more challenging to run, especially on a shoestring budget.

Many people in those 164 rural counties also face substantial poverty. Nationally 13.1 percent of the country’s population was below the poverty level in 2018 according to the ACS, versus 24.5 percent in those 164 counties. They also have very low rates of internet access compared to the national average. About 80 percent of households nationwide have a broadband subscription, compared to approximately 74 percent for all rural counties, and just 62 percent for the 164 rural counties where at least one in 10 households don’t have a car.

In other words, these are regions of rural America where residents are and will continue to be deeply vulnerable to the near-term health crisis and long-lasting economic impacts of COVID-19.

Rural transit needs more funding support, and we can’t stop there

As Congress takes up the nation’s surface transportation program for reauthorization, it is important for all members—from urban and rural areas alike—to take transit seriously. But we also need to rethink what providing transportation for rural Americans who don’t drive should look like. While there are no straightforward answers, and rural transit agencies will need to be part of this ongoing conversation, there are a number of key considerations we think should be part of the discussion.

For example, rural transit agencies in particular have never stood a fighting chance at covering their costs through fare revenues or even local taxes, and it’s time we stop letting the false standard and expectation that transit should pay for itself influence policy and funding decisions. Rural areas have always needed subsidies for public services, from electricity and water to (today) transit and broadband. We should accept that fact and provide for rural transit like we do for other essential public services.

We should also equip rural areas to design their transit systems to meet residents’ needs as directly and cost-effectively as possible. That could mean additional funding to identify pockets of low-density areas where residents are especially vulnerable, or resources to determine exactly where and when people are traveling to and from to help rural agencies tailor their services. This is information that some transit providers already collect in some capacity, either formally or anecdotally, but many don’t have the resources or capacity to process that information to make service changes.

If we want to invest in the economic recovery of rural America, we need to invest in everyone who lives there. The numbers bear it out: Transit must be part of that solution.

House bill proposes $15 billion for transit. It’s not enough

Democrats in the House of Representatives only included $15 billion for transit in their next COVID-19 relief bill. That’s not enough—we need double that to ensure that transit survives this crisis.  Send a message to your congressional delegation urging them to support $32 billion for transit. 

Yesterday, Democrats in the House of Representatives released their next COVID-19 relief bill that only includes $15 billion in emergency operating support for public transportation. That’s a start, but not enough to ensure that transit agencies can keep their workers healthy and safely return to service when this pandemic subsides. We know that transit needs more. 

Take action

In March, research group TransitCenter estimated that transit agencies would experience losses between $26-$38 billion this year due to impacts from COVID-19. That range seemed huge at first, but no longer: agencies are predicting losses that far outstrip the emergency funding they received from the federal government. 

That’s why we’re asking Congress to double the amount for transit in the House bill and approve $32 billion in emergency operating support. That number is based on an estimate from a coalition of transit-related unions and the Metropolitan Transportation Association (MTA). 

We need you to send a message to your congressional delegation urging them to support $32 billion to support transit through the end of 2021. 

Are you an elected official? Or do you represent an organization? You can also sign our coalition letter to Congressional leadership. We are sending this letter this Friday before the House votes, so time is of the essence if your organization wants to join this letter.

If we don’t act now, millions of Americans—including millions of essential workers, such as nurses and grocery clerks—will lose access to jobs, healthcare, and other critical services. And any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to help people safely get back to work as this unprecedented crisis subsides. 

We give $40 billion to states every year to build highways. In this moment of extraordinary need, transit requires $32 billion to keep running through 2021. That’s an investment well worth making.

We can’t afford for transit to stop running, or be unable to pick up when the economy does. We need Congress to act, but time is short. Send your message today!

Laser focused on repairing our bridges

Despite advances in technology, the standard practice for evaluating a bridge’s maintenance needs is a visual inspection, just as it was a half-century ago. To address our nation’s huge backlog in structurally deficient bridges in a more accurate and fiscally responsible way, the federal government should evaluate and speed the adoption of available technologies.

For the past 50 years, trained technicians have inspected highway bridges every two years (or more frequently) to assess the need for repairs or replacement. But in the early 2000s, a review of this practice by the Federal Highway Administration found the process “subjective,” “widely variable,” and incapable of optimizing spending.

Like so many things in transportation—the lopsided funding for roads compared to transit, our use of vehicle speed as a proxy for access, or our focus on building new infrastructure instead of repairing what we have—the way we inspect bridges is stuck in the past, decades behind the needs of the country. Transportation for America believes that we need to make repair one of our national priorities, but to do that, we also need to rethink how we evaluate what most needs to be repaired, and when. Better information can help inform a fix-it-first policy. 

Fortunately, there are proven structural monitoring technologies commercially available today that can objectively assess which bridges must be replaced, which replacements can be safely deferred, and which might be able to continue functioning effectively with only minor repairs. This would allow state DOTs or local agencies to better target their repair dollars. But nationally, the norm is still subjective visual inspections.

This is no small issue. There are over 50,000 bridges across the country that are considered structurally deficient today, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. The rehabilitation & replacement cost for this problem is an estimated $123 billion. But using technologies that are available today could potentially shave billions off that price tag. A number of projects conducted by some transportation agencies have shown that using structural monitoring technology in lieu of relying solely on visual inspections to more precisely assess bridge conditions is highly effective and has saved hundreds of millions of dollars by avoiding unnecessary replacement projects. 

We believe that with the right policies and practices in place we can cut the national maintenance backlog in half. Part of the solution will be changing how we allocate resources, and part of the solution could be using the best available technology and data to evaluate the scale of the problem. But the federal government must lead this change for there to be widespread adoption of this technology.

The U.S. Department of Transportation should embark on an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of structural monitoring technologies to more objectively and accurately inspect bridges for safety. And Congress can be part of the solution by providing incentives and funding to spur their adoption.

Change is never easy, especially when it comes to transportation. There are decades of inertia within state departments of transportation which are already tasked with far more than their original mission of yesteryear (building the interstate highway system). But the interstate highway system is complete, the country has changed, and it’s time for U.S. DOT and state agencies to catch up. Facing deficits and uncertainty brought on by the pandemic, there has never been a better time to adopt new technologies that could yield large savings.

COVID-19 & the curb: Private sector works to adapt and offer creative solutions

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

Adapting curbside management in Santa Monica, CA. Photo from Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.

Flexible curbside management is a small, but key, piece of many cities’ response to COVID-19. Often, these efforts have been supported or made possible with the support and technology of private-sector partners. Transportation for America reached out to its Smart Cities Collaborative sponsors to hear how they’re responding to COVID-19 and working with jurisdictions to adapt curbside management. 

Adapting their platforms and launching new tools

To accommodate increased food takeout and deliveries, Coord, a curbside management software company, is offering their platform at no cost for 90 days to cities in its coverage area. Coord also worked with existing city customers who were identifying locations for temporary loading zones and fast-tracked specific feature requests. 

Downtown Santa Monica Inc. (DTSM), a business improvement nonprofit in Santa Monica, CA, used Coord’s data collection and analysis to help them quickly stand up a program where essential businesses could temporarily convert metered parking into short-term loading. “[We] were looking for any opportunity to support our district businesses during the COVID-19 crisis,” Benjamin DeWitte, DTSM’s Research and Data Manager, shared with us. “Our prior research into curb usage, driven by COORD data collection and analysis, indicated that a shift from metered parking to short-term loading could positively impact access and efficiency for those who rely on delivery and take out business.” 

Populus, whose data platform helps cities manage their curbs, streets, and sidewalks, is working with their existing city customers to provide digital solutions that support “Open Streets” and “Slow Streets”. They’re also inviting cities and agencies to apply to their Open Streets Initiative where they’ll partner with a handful of cities on implementing dynamic street policies and provide them with complimentary access to their Street Manager platform. The deadline to apply is May 15. 

Lacuna, a transportation technology company, is launching a dynamic curb reservation system in May that allows cities to remotely allocate sections of curb in real-time to accommodate deliveries of food, freight, and other essential supplies. 

Establishing internal teams to work directly with cities

Uber has put together an internal team that’s dedicated to working with cities and stakeholders to ensure safe access points for trips to essential places like hospitals, grocery stores, and pharmacies. They are also reaching out to cities to learn how they can best support city efforts to ensure adequate space for social distancing, offering the use of geofencing and in-app routing changes to support car-free streets. 

Preparing for the future

A number of companies are starting to think about what the world may look like post-COVID. Passport, a parking and mobility software company, is starting virtual conversations through its webinars on the future of the mobility industry and the equity impacts of cashless payments. 

Strong public and private partnerships are key to emergency response. We hope to continue to see the private sector work alongside municipalities to offer support and transformative tech solutions. 

Mae Hanzlik is a program manager for Transportation for America in Washington, D.C.

Curbside management in a recurring emergency scenario: A municipal perspective

A service lane in the Cleveland Park neighborhood in Washington, DC.

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

By Benito O. Pérez, AICP CTP, CPM; and David Carson Lipscomb, MCP

For all of us, 2020 will be the year the world changed. Seemingly overnight the hustle and bustle of life and commerce in our cities went nearly silent under government-mandated shelter-in-place orders aimed to stop the spread of COVID-19. Overwhelmed healthcare networks and essential businesses that help meet our most basic needs were thrown into crisis. This is a common reality after natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, and floods. However, unlike those events, this is simultaneously a prolonged and global experience.

Municipal governments are vital to protecting our communities, tasked with coordinating resources to address this public health emergency while maintaining order and normalcy for residents. Curbside and parking professionals across the country have supported their municipal responses by ensuring prioritized, optimal transportation network operations in innovative, rapid-response ways including the following.

  • Restaurant pick-up zones. With dine-in operations banned, restaurants shifted to takeout/delivery models resulting in congestion at the curb for customers and couriers. Originating in Seattle and propagating rapidly across the country, municipalities reprogrammed segments of their curbside with temporary signage coupled with information campaigns (like the District of Columbia map) showing curbs prioritized for pick-up activity. This ensured curb turnover while supporting local restaurants.
  • Relaxed curbside enforcement. Shelter-in-place orders led to more stationary vehicles, which put them in violation of policies encouraging turnover. Cities like Miami, Pittsburgh, and others relaxed parking enforcement to discourage unnecessary community movement.
  • Suspended parking space payment. Some communities suspended parking payment, though they did not make that decision lightly. In many jurisdictions, parking revenue is the operational funding lifeblood of their organizations. For the District, it’s about 10 percent of its annual contribution to the regional transportation system. However, costs to maintain parking payment far outweighed anticipated revenue. Additionally, reducing potential sources of infection, i.e., parking payment kiosks, was also of concern for municipal operators.
  • Prioritized/designated essential service provider parking. Hospitals have been the front lines of this pandemic, with many facilities converting off-street parking lots and garages to triage and community testing sites. With limited public transportation services and scarce access to for-hire vehicles as drivers limit their exposure, some healthcare providers are resorting to private vehicles. With on-site parking gone, municipalities have designated curbsides near medical facilities for healthcare facility employees. New York City has issued healthcare provider parking permits to allow them to park wherever is most convenient. This may become an extended concern for other essential service staff in dense, urban areas with limited transit.
  • Expanded sidewalks. In urban areas in particular, sidewalks are constrained by historical rights of way. That means there may be sidewalks narrower than the minimum six feet recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “physical distancing” guidelines. Places like New York City have cleared the curb, if not the entire roadway, to facilitate unimpeded, “physically distant” pedestrian routes.

These are but a few strategies that are part of cohesive and holistic community responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. If you have a good story, please share it with benito.perez@dc.gov. 

Benito O. Pérez is the curbside management operations planning manager at the District Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C.

David C. Lipscomb is a curbside management planner at the District Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C.

Memo: Smart transportation investments are key to future resiliency

The following is a memo published by Third Way on ensuring smart infrastructure investments, written by Third Way‘s Transportation Policy Advisor, Alex Laska. Alex recently joined T4America Director Beth Osborne on a webinar, “Responding to the Crisis: What Does US Infrastructure Look Like During the COVID-19 Recovery?” presented by Third Way, Our Daily Planet, and the University of Michigan”. You can watch the webinar here. 

The U.S. government has rightly focused first on dealing with the ongoing health crisis and minimizing the economic damage that American families and businesses are facing. Policy goals will ultimately have to broaden so we can spur economic activity and recover from the slow-down. We must focus on shoring up our economy and providing the smart funding and policy to put people back to work and make our economy more resilient to future shocks. A key component of that will be investing in our nation’s surface transportation infrastructure—but we have to do it right. Here are some principles to keep in mind if we want to get the most economic bang for our infrastructure buck:

Summary

Fix it First: Instead of focusing stimulus funds on building new infrastructure that we don’t need and can’t afford to maintain, let’s prioritize putting millions of people to work fixing the infrastructure we already have. This “fix it first” approach will create more jobs and get more money out to workers in a shorter timeframe—without needlessly encouraging extra driving and emissions.

  • Require states to tackle a significant portion of their road and bridge maintenance backlogs before they can construct new lane-miles.
  • Provide the $550 billion needed to eliminate road and bridge maintenance backlog, which will create as many as five million jobs.
  • Require states that want to use stimulus funds for new road construction to demonstrate that they can afford to maintain the new infrastructure.
  • Ensure state DOTs are equipped to spend the stimulus funds quickly by providing grants to build agency capacity and offering technical assistance on project selection and delivery.

Build it Back Stronger: Our infrastructure should be rebuilt to better withstand climate change and severe weather, keeping people and goods moving and getting our economy back up and running more quickly after future shocks.

  • Fund a comprehensive assessment of the resiliency of U.S. infrastructure, so we can determine the full extent and cost of national resiliency needs and which projects are most critical.
  • Establish a new funding stream to support projects that improve resiliency.
  • Incorporate resiliency into federal highway funding formulas and competitive grant programs.
  • Reestablish federal flood protection standards and apply them to all infrastructure spending.

Prepare for Tomorrow’s Needs: We also need to make sure we’re rebuilding our infrastructure to be relevant for the future. The federal government must make funds available to deploy the alternative fueling infrastructure needed to enable the coming transition to zero-emission vehicles. We also need to consider broadband deployment as part of our transportation infrastructure investments, ensuring the conduit is available to help underserved communities get access to broadband.

  • Establish a new funding stream of at least $2.3 billion to support the buildout of public EV chargers and other alternative refueling infrastructure.
  • Increase funding for the Alternative Fuels Corridors program to help states identify and address barriers to refueling infrastructure deployment.
  • Implement a “Dig Once” policy so that broadband conduit will be included during the construction or reconstruction of any road receiving federal funding.

Fix it first: Prioritize maintaining the assets we already have over new construction

The premise of “Fix it First” is simple: federal dollars for surface transportation infrastructure should go towards repair projects before new construction. A “Fix it First” policy will get more money out faster to hire people, create jobs, and make our infrastructure more resilient than spending the same amount on new construction projects—while at the same time avoiding needless increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), congestion, and carbon pollution.

The extent of our repair needs: America has over $550 billion in road and bridge repair needs. Our road maintenance backlog—projects that would lift roads currently in poor condition into a state of good repair—is now $376.4 billion. On top of that, the U.S. has approximately 47,000 structurally deficient bridges, and it could cost nearly $171 billion to make needed repairs for all 235,000 bridges in the U.S.

Congress should invest the full $550 billion over five years in order to eliminate our maintenance backlog, make our transportation network safer, and put millions of Americans back to work.

How many jobs it would create, and how quickly: Investing in fully tackling the road and bridge repair backlog could create as many as five million jobs. According to an analysis of states’ Recovery Act reports, repair work on roads and bridges generated 16 percent more jobs per dollar invested than new road and bridge construction. This is largely because repair projects are more labor intensive—for example, they don’t need to spend as much money on land or right-of-way acquisition—so more of the money can go towards hiring workers.

A “Fix it First” policy would spend money faster and create jobs more quickly. New construction projects take longer to create jobs because they often require property acquisition or lengthy environmental or design review processes. Repair projects put money into the economy faster: most repair projects can be completed in one construction season, whereas most new construction projects take up to seven years to pay out.

Time is of the essence: weekly unemployment claims have hit an all-time high, with 6.6 million Americans filing a claim in the last week of March. A “Fix It First” policy will create the most jobs, and it will create them faster.

How it’s better for climate: Despite increases in the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles, emissions from highway transportation have increased over the past decade largely due to an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Research has shown that constructing new lane miles leads to more driving, which in turn leads to higher emissions and more congestion. Conversely, prioritizing maintenance projects will help reduce emissions by slowing that growth in driving.

It is critical that we achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, and that includes deeply reducing emissions from highway transportation. Even as Congress focuses on the more immediate objective of economic recovery, we cannot lose sight of our need to reduce emissions: “Fix it First” will help us avoid increasing VMT and emissions even further.

How to implement it: To maximize our surface transportation infrastructure investments, Congress needs to compel states to prioritize repair projects while ensuring states have the capacity to manage the influx of stimulus dollars.

  • Stimulus funding for infrastructure should be limited only to repair projects so that states can tackle their maintenance backlog before using the funds to build something new. This idea has gotten some attention on Capitol Hill: House Democrats included a “Fix it First” policy in their January 2020 infrastructure framework, saying they would “revamp” the federal highway formula programs to prioritize maintaining and improving existing infrastructure.
  • Congress should also require that any state that wants to use federal funds for network expansion must prove it can afford to maintain the new roadway capacity. Over the past 10 years, states have spent about an equal portion of the transportation infrastructure dollars on road repair and new road construction—all while the percentage of roads in poor condition increased from 14 percent to 20 percent. This is unsustainable in the long-run, and adding new lane-miles when it isn’t absolutely necessary will only make the problem worse. Requiring states to demonstrate they can maintain new infrastructure and not let it fall into disrepair will ensure more federal funding goes toward repair projects that spend money faster, create more jobs, and avoid emissions increases.
  • To maximize our investment, we need to make sure state DOTs are equipped to handle such a large influx of new funding and get projects started quickly. Congress should provide grant funding for state DOTs that face capacity issues and should also provide funding to FHWA to provide technical assistance to state DOTs on project selection and delivery. 

Building it back stronger: Rebuild our infrastructure to be more resilient to climate change and severe weather

As we rebuild our infrastructure, we shouldn’t just rebuild it exactly the way it was before—we need to fix our infrastructure so that it’s better suited to deal with climate change and severe weather. Extreme weather events like hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires are increasing, and so is the cost of rebuilding following those events. But the U.S. has failed to integrate resiliency into our infrastructure, chronically underinvesting in projects that would help the system recover after a shock. That needs to change: resiliency must become a factor in federal infrastructure funding decisions so we can ensure our transportation network can better withstand future disruptions and reduce the cost of maintaining the system over the life of these projects.

Determining our resiliency needs: Due to decades of failing to account for resiliency in our infrastructure investments, we don’t have a good tally of exactly what’s needed. We don’t know all of the bridges that need to be raised to higher flood levels, which projects are most urgent to ensure continuity, or which parts of the network are most vulnerable to which kinds of shock. For example, the Office of Management and Budget reported in 2016 that the total cost of replacing all federally-owned assets built in flood plains would exceed $1 trillion—but that includes all federal assets such as transportation and communications infrastructure, federal buildings, national security facilities, etc. The federal government needs to lead a comprehensive effort to assess the current condition of our transportation infrastructure from a resiliency standpoint, determining which projects are most critical and how much funding is needed.

How to improve resiliency: While we still need to get the complete picture of where our infrastructure resiliency needs are the greatest, we can begin getting money out the door for projects that state and local agencies have already identified. Federal programs like FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program help states and communities plan for disasters and implement mitigation measures that reduce impacts from severe events like flooding. Programs like these can serve as a model for establishing a new, transportation infrastructure-specific program that awards funding on a competitive basis to projects that can demonstrate they meet certain resiliency criteria. Congress should:

  • Establish a resiliency-specific funding stream of at least $5 billion, as included in the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s highway reauthorization bill. This program should be competitive so that state and local agencies must detail how the project would improve resiliency based on well-defined criteria.
  • Direct USDOT to develop definitive resiliency criteria and use those criteria in federal funding decisions, not only in the aforementioned competitive grant program but also in the highway formula programs and other competitive grant programs like BUILD and INFRA. The House Democrats’ Moving Forward Framework called for including resiliency as a decision-making factor in project selection. This will help ensure that all transportation infrastructure funding considers resiliency and that we’re rebuilding our infrastructure to last.
  • Reestablish federal flood protection standards and apply them to all infrastructure spending so that we can fully account for the future impacts of climate change and severe weather. This will ensure we’re spending taxpayer dollars wisely by directing funding away from locations that are most vulnerable like floodplains.

These policies are just a start. While we don’t yet know the entire scope or cost of our resiliency needs, there’s no question that after decades of failing to invest sufficiently in resiliency, a $5 billion grant program will not be enough. A comprehensive effort to identify and address our transportation infrastructure resiliency challenges, paired with a robust direct federal investment program, will help our network and our economy recover from future extreme events while also putting potentially millions of Americans to work making our infrastructure stronger. 

Providing for tomorrow’s needs: Build out refueling infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles and broadband infrastructure

If we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in repairing and upgrading our infrastructure, we need to make sure that infrastructure will remain relevant for decades to come. That means building out the electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure and other alternative refueling infrastructure to enable a rapid transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) such as plug-in hybrid vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. It also means getting as many communities as possible “cable-ready” by deploying broadband conduit during road construction, thereby saving money by reducing redundant excavation.

How many chargers we need, and what it will cost: According to the Center for American Progress, we need to deploy 330,000 additional public EV chargers by the end of 2025 in order to accommodate the growth in EVs needed to meet our Paris Agreement commitments. While fulfilling our Paris Agreement emissions reduction targets is not enough, it will put us on a starting path towards achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This buildout will cost us $4.7 billion over the next five years; taking existing state resources and the Volkswagon “Electrify America” settlement funds into account, that leaves us with a $2.3 billion gap.

A $2.3 billion federal investment will help build out the infrastructure we need to rapidly transition to ZEVs, while creating thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs in the near-term. It will also provide a strong signal to consumers and automakers that the infrastructure to support ZEVs will be there as more are put on the road.

How to improve federal EV infrastructure programs: Many states have tax incentives and other policies to incentivize EV infrastructure buildout, but federal action has lagged behind:

  • The Federal Highway Administration has an Alternative Fuels Corridors program that provides low-dollar grants for state and local transportation agencies to do the research and analysis work to identify and address barriers to EV infrastructure installation. We should expand funding for this program to help more transportation agencies develop alternative fueling corridors, including addressing right-of-way acquisition.
  • While there are federal programs like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) highway formula program and the DOE State Energy Program that states can use to fund charging infrastructure, states generally use those funds for other priorities. Congress should establish a separate funding stream of at least $2.3 billion, including direct federal investment and grants to state and localities, to deploy the needed infrastructure. The House and Senate committees of jurisdiction have both called for such a program.

How to save money with a “Dig Once” policy: The COVID-19 crisis has brought the digital divide into stark relief. At a time when more and more Americans rely on an Internet connection for telehealth and virtual learning, underserved communities are getting left behind. Building out our broadband infrastructure will help get more Americans online while also creating construction jobs.

Broadband is an enormously important issue and opportunity that deserves its own list of policy recommendations. But as we focus on transportation infrastructure, we should keep in mind that the same roads we’re constructing or rebuilding now might need to be dug up again in the future to lay down broadband fiber. According to FHWA, burying fiber optic cables and conduit underground is the largest cost element for deploying broadband, responsible for up to 90 percent of deployment cost when it requires major excavation of roadway. A “Dig Once” policy minimizing excavations could save $100 billion.

In order to reduce redundant digs and save money in the long-run, Congress should:

  • Include a “Dig Once” policy requiring broadband conduit to be included during the construction or reconstruction of any road receiving federal funding, if the surrounding communities do not already have broadband access.
  • Direct state and local agencies to collaborate with the Internet Service Providers in their communities to identify where this conduit is needed and work together to minimize redundant digs.

Conclusion

The unfolding economic crisis calls for bold, swift action to put millions of Americans back to work and stimulate economic growth. Improving our infrastructure is one of the smartest investments we can make to accomplish those goals. For too long, the federal government has embraced a transportation infrastructure policy that encourages new construction where we don’t need it and can’t afford to maintain it. We have an opportunity now to reshape how we invest in our transportation infrastructure—to prioritize fixing what we have before we build anything new, to ensure we’re rebuilding our infrastructure to be more resilient to future shocks including climate change and severe weather, and to build out the infrastructure we need to support a rapid transition to zero-emission vehicles. Combined, these policies will create millions of jobs, ensure our transportation network can better withstand future shocks, and help reduce emissions.

The parking and mobility industry comes together in a time of need. Here’s how.

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

There is an enduring human spirit that persists in crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has put that spirit to the test, forging stronger bonds within and between our communities, our industries, our nation, and our humanity. Lately, I have been struck by how closely connected we all are.

I don’t need to tell you how strange, trying, and scary these weeks have been. But what you might not know is while everyone was figuring out how to work from home, keep their business afloat, or protect their loved ones, professionals across the parking and mobility industry were hard at work trying to support those activities. 

Our communities are normally test beds for ongoing transportation innovation, but this pandemic has accelerated the need for creative use of our resources and emphasizes the importance of collaboration between colleagues. Although every community has unique features, hopefully practices that work well in one community rapidly multiply across the country. The past few weeks have seen that concept accelerate to hyper speed.

As communities enacted new policies to protect citizens by minimizing the spread of the coronavirus, their parking and mobility programs adapted curb management and parking policies to address emerging priorities. Rapid installation of temporary loading zones for restaurant curbside pickup and paid parking and enforcement policy changes to help homebound residents were needed to support business and residential communities. Supportive parking policies for healthcare and other essential workers were critical to ensuring safe, efficient, and quick access to parking as hospitals expanded triage areas into their parking lots.

Behind these changes was an amazing network of professionals connecting in rapid fashion to share ideas, discuss challenges, and offer support. A few resources that truly helped to connect folks included:

  • City groups functioning through International Parking and Mobility Institute (IPMI), the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and Transportation for America’s 2020 Smart Cities Collaborative came together in a grassroots fashion to help discuss, test, implement, monitor, and triage curbside changes. Through a variety of channels – emails, Slack, and good old phone calls – policies implemented on one side of the country quickly made to the other side. 
  • The IPMI Forum, an online IPMI member resource, provided a place for professionals to ask questions, compare ideas, and discuss how to adapt policy. As bigger cities created their policies, they trickled down through this network.
  • Transportation for America’s Smart Cities Collaborative Slack channel provided a simple, effective forum for member cities to discuss and share responses and solutions to COVID-19. 
    • Smart Cities Collaborative member Chris Iverson from the City of Bellevue, Wash., shared that, “Once restaurants were mandated to shift to delivery and pick-up operations only, we reached out to the Collaborative to see what curbside best practices other cities were implementing. It helped immensely that everyone in the Slack channel was already focused on curbside management practices, and the transition to crisis mode was made easier with the help of the Collaborative.”
  • The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) launched a Transportation Resource Center public tool for cities to share information and develop effective responses to this evolving global crisis. It provides actionable examples of how cities around the world are addressing critical tasks, such as:
    • Helping healthcare and other essential workers get safely where they’re needed while protecting transit operators and frontline staff.
    • Creating pick-up/delivery zones to ensure that residents can access food and essential goods.
    • Managing public space to encourage physical distancing.
    • Deploying effective public communications and signage.
  • The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is collecting a variety of transportation data to assist in understanding recent changes to travel of people and goods in response to COVID-19

Collectively, this network helped keep businesses running, supported stay-at-home orders, and facilitated the needs of healthcare systems. In a joint effort, IPMI, Transportation for America, ITE, and other partner organizations are documenting these actions and their impacts. They plan to provide summary blogs, articles, and peer reviewed white papers to help communities understand, plan, mitigate, and forge ahead through future emergencies.

If you have a good story, please share it with brett@woodsolutionsgroup.com. 

Brett Wood, CAPP, PE, is president of Wood Solutions Group.

Here are 4 things transit agencies can do to fight for more funding

The $25 billion in emergency funding provided for transit agencies in the first COVID-19 relief package was a great start—but as the crisis continues, agencies (and rural agencies in particular) likely need more funds to keep their personnel safe and return to normal service when stay at home orders loosen. Here are four powerful actions transit agencies can take to fight for more funding. 

Public transportation budgets are currently in freefall. With revenue dwindling due to dramatically reduced ridership, diminished sale tax receipts, and other impacts from a contracting economy, transit agencies might lose between $26-$38 billion this year. This severely constricts agencies’ abilities to run enough service to get essential workers to their jobs and to keep their personnel safe from contracting COVID-19—and all but annihilates the possibility of returning to normal service when stay at home orders loosen. 

The $25 billion in emergency operating assistance for transit included in the first coronavirus relief package—the CARES Act, passed last month—will support agencies for a little while, and even helped Grand Rapids’ transit agency postpone 300 layoffs. But it’s not enough. If transit agencies, riders, and advocates don’t speak up, the choice to cut transit funding at the federal and state level may not be too hard.

Transit agencies can make sure that doesn’t happen. Here are four powerful actions transit agencies can take to push Congress to pass more emergency funding for transit. 

1. Track and publicize how COVID-19 is impacting your agency

COVID-19 is having a massive impact on every aspect of public transportation—so if you aren’t already, track these impacts. Quantifying costs and recording stories from personnel and riders will help you make the case for funding. 

Some items worth tracking are COVID-19’s impacts on your budget, particularly:

  • Whether funding from the CARES Act is sufficient to help you maintain frequent, uncrowded service for essential workers, and how long existing funding will last; 
  • If your needs have changed since receiving CARES Act funding; 
  • If you are considering layoffs and what it would cost to avoid layoffs; 
  • Rates of staff illnesses, quarantines, and fatalities. 

2. Work with reporters to cover these impacts

What’s happening to public transportation—and what will happen if transit agencies don’t receive anymore emergency funding—is an incredibly important and newsworthy story. Be open with reporters: share COVID-19’s immediate impacts with them, and how COVID-19 is affecting your ability to provide transit service now and in the future. You have a story that deserves to be in the news. 

3. Call your elected officials

As an essential industry on the frontline of the pandemic, transit agencies are some of the only entities that can give elected officials accurate and detailed accounts of how COVID-19 is impacting public services and hurting their personnel. And as recipients of federal funding, transit agencies have a responsibility to communicate to Congress particularly that your ability to connect essential workers to jobs is shrinking due to dwindling resources. 

We recommend just picking up the phone and calling your Congressional delegation, your state representatives, your governor’s office, your mayor’s office, and your city council—it is their job to listen to you. Tell them about staff illness and quarantines, and what you need to get essential workers to jobs. Tell them what you’re doing to protect employees and the public, and what you need to keep them safe. Tell them that frankly, you don’t know what COVID-19 means for your agency.

4. Engage your local advocates and riders

Passionate transportation advocates and riders—especially essential workers who are using transit to get to their jobs—are one of your greatest resources. Tell advocates and riders that if they want transit service to exist now and when stay at home orders loosen, they need to call their elected officials to secure more emergency operating funding for transit. Share how COVID-19 is impacting your agency to arm advocates and riders with the tools to help you. 

For inspiration, Oklahoma Transit Association’s Faces of Transit project is a terrific example of using riders’ stories to promote increased funding for transit. 

Psssh, there’s one more thing: Tell T4America how we can help you: Email us (or ask to hop on the phone) to tell us what you’re experiencing. The more we know, the more we can help. 

How is COVID-19 impacting rural transit in Oklahoma


Struggles for rural transit agencies show that the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to public transportation are not limited to big cities.

Transit agencies are struggling to continue providing service in the face of plummeting fare revenues and increased costs associated with the need for cleaning vehicles and providing enough service to allow for safe spacing of passengers.

The fallout for transit in this crisis has been more visible in large cities than rural communities, since more people use transit in urban areas, and urban transit is typically more dependent on farebox revenue. But the impact has been just as severe for rural transit systems. Rural systems often don’t have staff that can dedicate time documenting impacts and calling members of Congress. They are trying to keep the doors open, the vehicles clean and running, and the drivers and riders safe. This may in part explain why many rural and tribal transit systems were caught off-guard when their share of the $25 billion of transit relief funding in the CARES Act was cut in half, from $4 billion to $2.2 billion just before the bill passed.

The reality is that rural transit agencies, already operating on very tight margins with unstable financial support, are already at a breaking point in this crisis. “Rural transit systems are at their wits’ end emotionally, physically, mentally and financially,” says LaQuita Thornely, Executive Director of INCA Community Services, an agency that operates JAMM Transit in four rural Oklahoma counties. “The nature of rural transit makes survival during this time questionable.”

What we heard from transit agencies in Oklahoma are examples of what is likely happening to rural transit agencies nationwide.

The modest pay and part-time nature of driving for a rural system means it doesn’t pay the bills but can supplement retirement income. Because of this, rural transit drivers are more often older — many are over 65 — and therefore at greater risk of complications or even death, should they be infected by COVID-19.

For good reason, drivers are already skittish about continuing to work, and many are quitting, often not even bothering to give notice. Recently, a dialysis patient tested positive for the coronavirus after exposing two drivers. “We are awaiting the ripple effects of that incident on driver retention,” said Charla Sloan, Transit Director for KI BOIS Area Transit System (KATS) that serves 12 rural Oklahoma counties. “Social distancing is not possible when rural drivers have to secure wheelchair passengers in the vehicles.” Several systems in Oklahoma have had to cut service due to the COVID-19-caused driver shortage.

Making sure drivers are protected could go a long way toward keeping drivers safe and more of them on the job. But personal protective equipment (PPE) and even hand sanitizer is in short supply and hard to come by. The Oklahoma Transit Association (OTA) has found a supply of hand sanitizer from a local distillery and protective masks from China through one of its vendor members. “We have been driving hundreds of miles around the state delivering hand sanitizer and masks to systems that have no other way to protect its drivers and riders,” said Mark C. Nestlen, Executive Director of OTA. “We have still not found a supplier for small spray bottles to dispense the hand sanitizer or vehicle cleaning supplies, so the stress level remains high.”

The fiscal impacts of the pandemic on already-stretched rural transit systems will be immense. “My system is two payrolls away from being broke,” said Melissa Fesler, Director of First Capital Trolley who serves three Oklahoma counties. “Already subdued local rural economies are shut down with physical distancing practices taking hold. Local revenue sources are drying up quickly, and those local revenues will not recover for years to come.”

“Concern is growing as to the long-term viability of rural transit once the pandemic subsides and we return to a new normal,” said state representative Avery Frix (R-Muskogee), who serves as Chairman of the Oklahoma House of Representatives Transportation Committee and represents two rural counties. “As a result of the COVID-19 health crisis and the related economic collapse, the funding from local sources is going to plummet. Our rural transit providers rely on local matching funds to leverage federal dollars to keep vehicles moving. And those local funds are not going to be there for years.”

Prior to the public health crisis many rural transit providers were already walking a razor’s edge with being able to continue service. Closing down entirely would be especially devastating to many seniors and people with disabilities who rely solely on their local transit system for the one meal at the senior site or access to much needed health care like dialysis or to the worker who relies on transit to get to work.

“As rural states recover from the crisis, public transit will have to be a major component of the economic recovery,” Frix continued. “Without an effective public transit system operating seamlessly statewide within and between rural communities and urban cities, a recovery will be slow at best, if at all.”