Skip to main content

The CARES Act isn’t enough to save public transportation

COVID-19 is costing transit agencies billions in lost revenue and increased costs to protect personnel. And unfortunately, the $25 billion in emergency funding Congress gave transit in the CARES Act isn’t enough—especially if stay-at-home orders continue indefinitely. The next relief package needs to give transit agencies more emergency assistance in order to keep transit workers safe and make sure that transit will be there when this crisis is over. 

Last month, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Emergency Security (CARES) Act, a $2 trillion relief package that gives transit agencies $25 billion in emergency relief. This is great, especially since the first draft of the bill included not one cent for public transportation. 

But as transit agencies across the country report mounting losses, we know that the CARES Act likely isn’t enough. Congress needs to give transit more emergency assistance. If they don’t, agencies won’t be able to keep their personnel safe from the virus, and they might not be able to  return to normal service when this crisis ends. 

Federal emergency funds are lower than transit’s losses

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. 

The $25 billion in emergency assistance from the CARES Act was apportioned to urbanized areas—not directly to transit agencies—through existing formula programs, meaning that we don’t yet know how much money individual transit agencies received. However, in New York’s case, the total sum for the urbanized area is smaller than the amount the region’s largest transit agency is losing. With ridership and revenue from sales taxes plummeting, New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) announced in March that the agency is anticipating losing approximately $10 billion in revenue this year—almost $5 billion more than the entire region received from the CARES Act. TransitCenter also recently estimated that MTA faces a shortfall of at least $4.4-$8 billion.

Many other urbanized areas are also home to multiple transit agencies, further splintering each region’s CARES Act funding. Each region typically follows their own protocol for distributing federal funding among its transit agencies. But this unprecedented loss of  revenue—and first ever infusion of federal support for operating expenses, not capital costs—might throw that protocol into chaos, meaning that agencies might not receive the percentage of federal funding they normally get. 

The San Francisco Bay Area has over 27 transit agencies, with the  Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) the largest of all. COVID-19 has created a budget shortfall between $258 million to $452 million for the agency, yet the entire region only received $822 million from the CARES Act.

It’s a similar story in the Washington, DC region, home to over 20 transit agencies. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is anticipating a “$67 million deficit, including $17 million in unanticipated expenses for gloves, sanitizer, disinfectants and other supplies the agency ordered to protect against the pandemic and $2.5 million a day in lost fare revenue,” according to the agency’s general manager. Yet given other regions’ unprecedented losses, WMATA’s deficit is likely much larger. Funding from the CARES Act for the DC region—a total of $1 billion—likely won’t cover their needs.

It’s not just big city transit agencies that are in trouble, though: rural transit agencies, already operating on very tight margins with unstable support, might not survive COVID-19 without more emergency assistance than they received through the CARES Act. 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—most are over 65—and therefore at greater risk of complications or even death, should they be infected by COVID-19. 

“The federal funding may get us through the peak of this pandemic,” Karl Gnadt, the managing director of the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District in Illinois, said to the New York Times . “The real concern is what’s next. At a time when unemployment is going to be rising and public transit becomes more and more critical, our funding is going to be going away. And we will be seeing significant service cuts.”

Without emergency funding, transit workers are at risk

Lost revenue isn’t the only strain on transit agencies’ budgets. Without funding, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for agencies to keep transit workers safe from COVID-19. 

Over 2,500 employees of New York City’s transit agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), have tested positive for COVID-19—and 68 have tragically died from the disease. With 5,000 employees quarantined, maintaining already-reduced service for essential workers is even more difficult. “If you have 10 people on a [transit] line and three of them are sick, you are going to have a schedule that’s not working and leads to overcrowding,” a spokesperson for the Transport Workers Union (TWU) told The Chief. 

It’s not just New York that’s struggling. According to the TWU, transit workers have also died from COVID-19 in Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, DC, Rocky Hill, CT and Everett, WA. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance for transit agencies on keeping personnel safe, but they know more guidance is needed—which is why they have invited transit agencies to submit feedback on improving these safety protocols.)

Nobody should die doing their job—which is why transit agencies are pouring resources to keep personnel safe. Transit agencies all over the country are suspending fare collection to minimize riders’ interactions with operators, allowing rear-door boarding, and distributing thousands of masks and gloves every single day—all incredibly costly but necessary measures. 

But it’s still not enough. Transit agencies need more emergency funding from the federal government to make sure that workers are protected from the virus. Funding transit isn’t “infrastructure”—it’s protection for frontline workers, and a guarantee that essential personnel, from healthcare to grocery workers, can get to their jobs now and when this crisis is over. 

If we want an infrastructure stimulus, there are valuable lessons to learn from 2009

While there are enormous needs for relief and support all across the economy, the president and many congressional leaders have indicated that they want infrastructure to be a major part of a future stimulus bill. If Congress does intend to use infrastructure spending to create jobs and support recovery, their own effort in 2009 has some clear lessons they should learn from.

As we tried to claw our way out of the Great Recession a decade ago, Congress gave states billions in new funding for transportation capital projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or better known as the stimulus. With a COVID-19 recession all but certain, America will need another stimulus. To help Congress and the public learn from our last attempt to create jobs and support economic recovery through infrastructure investments, our short new report provides six lessons and six recommendations from our deep experience evaluating the Recovery Act over 10 years ago.

Read the full report

 

Because the purpose of the Recovery Act was to create jobs, states were required to report how they spent that money, and how many jobs they created with it. Which means we have good data to use, based on state-reported documentation of how they spent ARRA money, and how many jobs their stimulus-funded projects created.

Did states take advantage of the flexibility given to them by Congress to invest in ways that would create the maximum number of jobs? Did Congress select programs for funding that were well-suited to the primary task of job-creation? The two biggest overall lessons gleaned from our review are: 

  1. The Recovery Act was meant to create jobs above all else, but that was not how we targeted or governed the infrastructure spending.
  2. In an attempt to do things quickly, Congress defaulted to existing programs that were poorly tailored to the tasks at hand.

As our Repair Priorities report showed, even with the extra $26 billion for surface transportation kicked in all at once, the country’s roads still got worse, not better.  That’s because our federal transportation program gives states billions each year without even the most basic requirement for them to repair what they have before building anything new. The 2009 stimulus was no different. Set free of any obligation to address their repair needs first with stimulus dollars, scores of states failed to prioritize repair with their ARRA funds, choosing new construction instead. Eleven states spent less than half of their money on repair, and nine of those states had worse roads in 2017 than in 2009.

This failure of stewardship was also a missed opportunity to have the greatest impact on creating jobs. A wide variety of other research consistently finds that on average, road repair produces 16 percent more jobs per dollar than new road construction. This makes sense considering the fact that new roadways and roadway expansions usually require right-of-way acquisition, which creates very few jobs (and no construction jobs), as well as more planning and environmental review, which also creates just a few jobs. Repair also takes care of an existing asset, saving money in the long run. Expansion creates a pricey new liability.

If Congress is interested in having the greatest impact, requiring repair with any stimulus dollars first is possibly the single best way to maximize the impact.

The second would be to invest heavily in transit, including repair. In this analysis we found that an ARRA dollar spent on public transportation produced 70 percent more job hours than an ARRA dollar spent on highways. Each mode showed clear differences in jobs produced per dollar: Transit preventive maintenance had by far the highest direct job-per-dollar result for transit, followed by rail car purchase and rehabilitation, infrastructure, and bus purchase and rehabilitation.

The CARES Act addressed enormous, immediate needs across the country by providing emergency support for transit operations. Without that kind of support, transit service might not survive to continue carrying essential workers to their jobs, and certainly won’t be around to help fuel an economic recovery.

As Congress and the nation debate the next phase of stimulus, we can and should benefit from the lessons we learned from the last stimulus. Some kinds of spending create more jobs, faster, than others. Limiting spending to capital only (and leaving out operations as ARRA mostly did) not only eliminates one of the most productive forms of spending, but it also creates future costs and slows the speed of economic recovery. 

We should direct federal infrastructure dollars to the types of projects that create what we need. In the face of unprecedented unemployment, that means projects which create the most jobs the fastest, and those that connect people to as much economic opportunity as possible. 

This will mean public transit—especially operations and repair—and road repair. 

Lessons are of little use if we don’t learn from them. We hope Congress takes note of their own history here with any potential infrastructure recovery package.

Message from the director

For those of you who were involved in implementing Recovery Act programs, engaged in advocacy on the stimulus, or worked to analyze how those billions were spent in some way, we also want to hear what you learned. Hear about the report briefly from Beth Osborne, the director of our Transportation for America program, who also has some questions for those of you who experienced the stimulus firsthand—and then share what you learned.

Hundreds tell Congress that we need a new framework for transportation

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to shift the political landscape, 293 elected officials and organizations from 45 states signed Transportation for America’s letter urging Congress to reform the federal transportation program in the upcoming reauthorization. Because rethinking transportation policy matters now more than ever.

When Transportation for America first wrote this letter advocating for groundbreaking changes in the upcoming federal transportation reauthorization, COVID-19 had yet to radically alter our everyday lives. But as the effects of the virus grew more and more dire, we’ve realized that establishing a new framework for U.S. transportation policy matters more now than ever. 

We’re not alone: 293 elected officials and organizations from 45 states signed this letter, with many signatories joining as the coronavirus accelerated. While focused on reauthorization, adopting the reforms in this letter is necessary for Congress to guarantee that any future COVID-19 stimulus substantially improves American lives—not just pump more money into a broken highway program that fails to create new jobs. 

“Americans can’t afford another six years of the status quo” said Beth Osborne, director of T4America. “Our transportation needs to better connect all people to jobs and services safely, affordably, and conveniently to get us through this current crisis and to aid our economic recovery. Congress needs to use the upcoming reauthorization to finally align transportation spending with today’s national goals—not as a vehicle to funnel more money into programs that fail to improve people’s lives.”

The letter asks Congress to adopt T4America’s three principles for transportation investment: Prioritize maintenance over expansion, design for safety over speed, and connect people to jobs and services. 

Road or bridge repair and maintenance projects actually create more jobs per dollar than building new capacity. Maintenance projects spend money faster, are open to more kinds of workers, spend less money on equipment and more on wages, and spend less time on plans and permits. In fact, roadway maintenance creates 16 percent more jobs per dollar compared to roadway expansion.

Designing roadways for safety would make walking to destinations or transit stops easier and more convenient. Millions rely on transit to get to work, access healthcare, go to the grocery store. With 2.8 million essential workers relying on transit to get to work, making transit trips more feasible is more important than ever before. 

The point of transportation is to get people where they need to go, meaning we should prioritize infrastructure and transportation projects that connect people to jobs and services. Since the dawn of the modern highway era, we have used vehicle speed as a poor proxy for access to jobs and important services like healthcare, education, public services, and grocery stores. The way we build roads and design communities to achieve high vehicle speed often requires longer trips and makes shorter walking, bicycling, or transit trips unsafe, unpleasant, or impossible. New data can help to address decades of disinvestment which have disconnected communities and worsened economic outcomes. 

Regardless of whether infrastructure will be included in a future COVID-19 stimulus, it is critical that Congress establish a foundation for transportation investment that guarantees that funding goes to projects that actually improve people’s lives. The ongoing economic and health crisis is the biggest testament to why the U.S. needs a new and better framework for our investments so that we can build stronger, more prosperous communities. 

Last fall, we published our in-depth policy recommendations for the upcoming reauthorization. Read them here.

Stop funding transit like it’s 1982, Congress

Congress has suggested that they may focus on infrastructure in an upcoming stimulus bill. It’s not entirely clear what Congress will do—or if spending on infrastructure is the right way to stimulate the economy right now—but if Congress does want to pass an infrastructure package, they should stop spending money like it’s 1982. 

Upset about this broken status quo? Sign our petition urging Congress to fund public transit and highways equally.

For decades, the U.S. has funded transportation based on the idea that the user pays for the infrastructure through a fee—the gas tax, which has filled the Highway Trust Fund since 1956. In 1982, Congress struck a deal to raise the gas tax, but 1 cent of the 5 cent increase would be dedicated to transit, with the remaining spent on highways. This established the infamous “80-20 split” in transportation spending: highways get 80 percent of funds, and transit only gets 20 percent (though in reality, transit gets much less).

Since then, transportation spending has essentially stayed the same. In the most recent spending bill, Congress appropriated $48.6 billion for highways and only $10.2 billion for transit. But the entire logic behind highways receiving a substantially larger portion of the pie—i.e. drivers were paying for it—came crashing down in 2008, when the trust fund ran out of money because the gas tax was no longer sufficient to cover expenditures. To stay afloat, the trust fund has received huge infusions of general taxpayer dollars totaling $144 billion.

Our transportation dollars are no longer based on a user fee paid by drivers, yet the 80-20 funding split persists. This no longer makes any sense. Even the influx of transportation funds from the Recovery Act in 2009 all came from deficit spending from the general fund—not a single dime came from gas tax user fees—yet the vast majority of funding (roughly 75 percent) went to roads.

Why should we continue to honor a nearly 40-year old system based on a nearly defunct user fee? If Congress pursues an infrastructure package or reauthorization as part of a stimulus bill, it will be wholly outside a user fee construct. Considering that, why shouldn’t transit receive more than 20 percent of transportation dollars? Why shouldn’t transit receive 80 percent or even 100 percent of transportation dollars? We are not saying that other modes should not receive any money. The point is that all assumptions should be questioned and funding should go to projects that create jobs quickly in a stimulus bill and support today’s needs and goals, not those of 40 years ago. 

It’s time for Congress to abandon this obsolete, untenable split in transportation funding.

Congress has already upended status quo

Whether legislators realized it or not, the recently passed $2 trillion CARES Act has already disrupted the status quo to deal with immediate needs. The act includes $25 billion in direct, emergency assistance for transit at a time when revenue is plummeting. That’s more than double what the federal government usually spends on transit in a year. Normally, transit agencies have been barred from using federal funds for operations, typically only providing funds for maintenance and capital (like building new stations, or buying new buses). 

With the passage of the CARES Act, Congress broke with precedent and provided essential funding for transit operations. But we should go further, and end the baseless 80-20 funding split. After all, this pandemic has made it obvious that transit is essential, and it should be funded as such.

With 2.8 million essential workers relying on transit to get to their jobs and countless others depending on it to access food and health care, we need transit to be robust, reliable, and frequent. And we’ll need transit to get tens of millions more people moving once this virus is contained. But giving transit only 20 percent of the pie just won’t cut it. 

According to the Federal Transit Administration, our transit systems face a $98 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. Unlike the road maintenance backlog which has more to do with state DOTs prioritizing new roads instead of maintenance, the transit backlog is due to insufficient funding. There is also great demand for more transit capital funding, and operating support will be critical to ensure that agencies can continue to provide this invaluable service and limit crowding.

We have underfunded transit for decades, and doing so has left too many communities with deteriorating systems and infrequent, unreliable service. It’s time to get rid of the 80-20 split. To get through this crisis and build a robust economy again, we’ll need to fund transit equitably and treat it like the vital public good that it is. 

Transit agencies need to keep telling Congress what COVID-19 is costing them

Update, 4/17: Our friends at TransitCenter are leading a sign-on letter to the White House Coronavirus Task Force requesting personal protective equipment for transit workers. If you represent an organization, please sign TransitCenter’s letter by end of day Monday, April 20th.

With costs rising to protect transit personnel from the pandemic and revenue streams simultaneously coming to a halt, public transportation likely needs more emergency funding than the $25 billion passed three weeks ago. Transit agencies have a responsibility to communicate their needs—and the major steps they’re taking to save lives—to their Congressional delegations. 

Transit workers—the bus operators, train operators, station managers, and other personnel that make public transportation thrive—are on the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic. Without them, scores of essential personnel wouldn’t be able to get to work; at least 35 percent of riders during regular times work in healthcare, grocery, and other essential industries. 

But with revenue screeching to a halt, transit agencies don’t have the tools to protect their employees from this pandemic, let alone return to normal service after this crisis ends. The $25 billion in emergency assistance for transit provided by the federal government is a great start, but it’s almost certainly not enough—especially with TransitCenter estimating losses between $26-$38 billion. 

The best way to ensure that Congress provides transit with additional emergency assistance is for agencies to communicate these needs with their Congressional delegations. As an essential industry on the frontline of the pandemic, transit agencies are some of the only entities that can give Congress 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 that their ability to connect essential workers to jobs is shrinking due to dwindling resources. 

Congress hears from airlines. Congress hears from automakers. Congress hears from state DOTs. They don’t hear from transit agencies as frequently. Congress’s minimal understanding of transit agencies’ needs might partially explain why the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 only provided transit agencies with capital funding, meaning that they could use that money for maintenance or constructing new infrastructure, but not for the costs of actually running transit service. The lack of operating support meant that transit agencies across the country had to cut service—at a time when Americans needed an affordable, convenient, and safe connection to jobs the most. 

Transit agencies need funding to protect personnel from COVID-19

Nobody should die doing their job—which is why transit agencies are pouring resources into efforts to keep personnel safe. Transit agencies all over the country are suspending fare collection to minimize riders’ interactions with operators, allowing rear-door boarding, and distributing thousands of masks and gloves every single day—all incredibly costly but necessary measures. 

But without robust funding, transit agencies can’t do enough to protect employees. Over 1,500 employees of New York City’s transit agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), have tested positive for COVID-19—and 41 have tragically died from the disease. With 5,000 employees quarantined, maintaining already-reduced service for essential workers even more difficult. “If you have 10 people on a [transit] line and three of them are sick, you are going to have a schedule that’s not working and leads to overcrowding,” a spokesperson for the Transport Workers Union (TWU) told The Chief. 

It’s not just New York that’s struggling. According to the TWU, transit workers have also died from COVID-19 in Detroit, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Boston, Washington, DC, Rocky Hill, CT and Everett, WA. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guidance for transit agencies on keeping personnel safe, but they know more guidance is needed—which is why they have invited transit agencies to submit feedback on improving these safety protocols.) 

The $25 billion in federal emergency assistance for transit agencies will certainly help agencies weather this unprecedented crisis, but with TransitCenter estimating that COVID-19 will cost public transportation between $26-$38 billion, agencies will almost certainly need more. A lot more. 

Transit agencies, please tell your Congressional delegation what COVID-19 is costing you. Tell them if funding from the CARES Act is or isn’t enough to get you through this crisis. 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. Just talk to Congress. They need to hear from you. 

If you’re not a transit agency but still want to tell Congress that transit is important, send Congress a thank you message for providing transit agencies with $25 billion in emergency assistance—and a reminder that more is needed.

Two bills put “access” at the heart of transportation policy

For too long, the focus of the federal transportation program has been vehicle speed, not helping Americans access jobs, schools, grocery stores and more. It’s time to focus our funding on improving people’s access to jobs and services—and U.S. Rep. Chuy García’s (IL-4) two new bills will do exactly that. 

An “L” underpass in Chicago.

Transportation is fundamentally a means for getting people and goods where they need to go. Making sure you get your children to school on time, and yourself to work; having a safe, convenient and affordable way to reach grocery stores and healthcare. 

But our federal transportation program doesn’t make improving these connections its goal. U.S. transportation policy focuses on avoiding any delay to vehicles, making our roads wider and our communities more spread out and disconnected in the process. As a result our transportation system is in crisis. Americans are stuck in congestion on crumbling roads and transit systems, often forced to travel further and further because our system fails to provide safe and convenient choices other than a car trip. 

That’s where two new bills from Representative Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04) come in. Today, Rep. García—along with his two co-chairs of the Future of Transportation Caucus—introduced the Improving Access to Jobs Act and Improving Access to Services Act to Congress with 12 co-sponsors, including Representatives Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Mark Takano (CA-41), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13), Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-03), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Jan Schakowsky (IL-9), Nanette Diaz Barragán (CA-44), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Jahana Hayes (CT-05), Bobby L. Rush (IL-01), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02), and Darren Soto (FL-9). 

These two bills would finally align federal spending with how people intuitively think about transportation: whether or not they can access their destinations. 

“Our transportation systems are failing Americans who face growing congestion, roads and transit systems in disrepair, and long-standing inequities that disproportionately hurt marginalized communities,” said Rep. García. “Any future transportation policies must make smarter investments to improve access, cut travel times, and lower the financial barriers to mobility for all.”

The two bills will create performance measures that make improving access the goal of federal transportation policy, and hold states accountable to improving access by all modes of travel. The bills would prevent metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) from increasing the ratio of automobile to non-automobile access in urbanized areas, empowering MPOs and states to balance transit, bike, and pedestrian investments alongside new roadway investments over an entire region. This would guarantee that any new roadway investments do not degrade transit, bike, and pedestrian access. 

If states fail to improve access, they must invest 10 percent of federal transportation funds apportioned to a state from the previous fiscal year into efforts to improve access overall. This requirement is in effect until the Secretary of Transportation certifies that a state is in compliance.

This intuitive concept—prioritizing access, not speed—is revolutionary in the world of transportation policy, which adopted speed as a metric for success before we had technologies like cloud computing and GIS that make measuring access possible. Some states already use access to allocate state transportation funding, like Virginia DOT. 

Two bills, one goal

There’s an important reason why Rep. García introduced these transformative performance measures as two seperate bills, though: People perceive commutes to work and trips to services differently. This has implications for transportation planning. 

People generally have a higher tolerance for longer commutes to work. Tolerance is lower for long trips to services—like grocery shopping, doctor’s appointments, recreation, and more—because they are often linked in one trip, rather than multiple round-trip journeys to and from homes. So while people might consider a 30-minute commute to be manageable, an area that’s 30-minutes one-way to the grocery store qualifies as a food desert—hence the need for different performance measures. 

Together, these two bills are one huge step towards prioritizing access in federal transportation legislation. But there are additional actions the federal government can take to truly make access a priority. T4America has called for the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services and set national goals for improvement; to phase out outdated metrics such as level of service; and to provide accessibility data to states, MPOs, and local communities. (You can read our full recommendations here.) 

Proposing a new way of doing things is never easy, particularly when it challenges how America fundamentally measures the success of our transportation system. We thank Rep. García for leading this effort toward a better, more accessible future.

Building a better stimulus package: here’s how

With the $2 trillion rescue plan approved, Congress is already eyeing another COVID-19 relief and recovery package later this month. Based in part on what we learned from the 2009 stimulus, Transportation for America contributed infrastructure proposals to Smart Growth America’s detailed recommendations for economic stabilization and recovery. We must ensure that any further stimulus empowers communities to be economically prosperous, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable. 

After passing the largest stimulus in United States history last week—$2 trillion, with $25 billion in aid for transit agencies and $1 billion for passenger rail—members of Congress know that more is needed to protect the country from the immediate and long-term impacts of COVID-19, and plan to work on another stimulus later this month. 

With the economy crumbling and millions of Americans’ lives at risk, the U.S. can’t afford to waste this opportunity for relief. We can’t squander our money on programs that fail to create the most new jobs or build lasting economic prosperity. It’s critical that this funding go to investments that give all Americans the opportunity to live in places that are healthy, prosperous, and resilient.

As part of Smart Growth America, we contributed to a new short SGA report outlining 20 recommendations for any economic recovery package that will boost our economy and give Americans equitable, accessible, safe and low carbon transportation options into the future. Here’s a summary of the transportation-related recommendations —read the full list here. 

Invest in projects that create the most jobs: that means maintenance, not expansion

Road or bridge repair and maintenance projects actually create more jobs than building new capacity. One reason is that with a new roadway project, a huge share of the cost goes toward buying property—an activity that has little to no stimulative or reinvestment value while also creating future liabilities (new roads) in the process. Meanwhile, maintenance projects spend money faster, are open to more kinds of workers, spend less money on equipment and more on wages, and spend less time on plans and permits. In fact, roadway maintenance creates 16 percent more jobs per dollar compared to roadway expansion.

And luckily, the U.S. is swimming with potential roadway maintenance projects, as found in our report Repair Priorities. It would be a win-win to require states to actually make progress on our repair backlog—something too few states did with 2009’s stimulus. Doing so would create the most jobs while finally addressing our “crumbling” infrastructure—instead of just using that rhetoric to approve new money that then gets spent on new roads. 

Give transit and passenger rail operating support, not just capital funds

The limited federal funds that public transportation receives are only for maintenance and construction. With ridership plummeting and costs for cleaning vehicles and protecting personnel skyrocketing—as well as the fallout from a rapidly contracting economy—transit and passenger rail need operating support now more than ever. 

The $25 billion for transit and $1 billion for passenger rail Congress provided in last week’s stimulus is a great start. But with TransitCenter estimating COVID-19-related losses to transit agencies between $26 and $38 billion, and Amtrak experiencing unprecedented drops in ridership, both public transportation and passenger rail will still need more. Congress should increase the amount of emergency operating funding in the next stimulus, and target transit agencies that need it the most. 

Expand transit and passenger rail

An economic stimulus is a rare and powerful opportunity to invest in the infrastructure that has the most potential to reduce our carbon emissions, increase access to opportunities, and make our country more equitable. But the focus of any stimulus package should be creating the most jobs per dollar, and capital funding for transit and rail creates far more jobs than road projects, according to research on the 2009 stimulus. 

Public dollars devoted to making capital improvements to public transportation systems also support thousands of manufacturing jobs, in communities small and large, in nearly every state across the country. Every $1 billion invested in public transit creates more than 50,000 jobs and economic returns of $3.7 billion over 20 years. 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.

T4America has other specific recommendations for how to increase funding for expanding transit and passenger rail—including increasing the federal share of projects to 80 percent (the same as roadways). You can check those out here. 

Final thoughts

Infrastructure will be an obvious topic for any stimulus, but we need a more comprehensive solution. Smart Growth America’s proposals for housing and community development are focused on the highest-returning investments that can also give more Americans a shot at opportunity. Check out the full list here, and stay tuned for ways that you can help us get these recommendations to Capitol Hill. To get updates, subscribe to T4America’s email list and follow us on Twitter. 

EPA rolls back CAFE standards, highlighting the need to reduce driving

This week, as the coronavirus crisis worsens, the Trump administration finalized its rollback of clean car standards, a move that will undermine public health and place even more of a burden on finding ways to reduce driving to reduce emissions.

As expected, the Trump Administration released the second part of the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles rule, which would require automakers increase fuel economy of passenger cars by 1.5 percent each year, compared to the previous more stringent 5 percent increase mandated by the Obama administration. This would allow cars on American roads to emit nearly a billion tons more carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the vehicles.

As cities and towns across the country urge people to stay home and only venture out for essential trips, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions have dropped drastically across the country. In Los Angeles, a city notoriously choked with smog from tailpipe emissions, skies have been remarkably clear as highways have been empty, demonstrating just how much pollution comes from all those cars and endless highways in any other normal week. 

But while empty highways have been one of the most visceral signs that our economy has come to a standstill, we shouldn’t need to sacrifice our lungs and health for the sake of a robust economy. 

There are ways to have both a booming economy and cleaner air and clear skies. One way is through more efficient and electric vehicles. But with the federal government reluctant to set ambitious efficiency standards for automakers, the floor dropping out on oil prices, and relatively slow sales of EVs, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. (Ford and GM are only planning to make 320,000 electric vehicles in 2026, fewer than Tesla made last year.) The only other way is to provide meaningful transportation options that would help people reduce the distance they need to drive—or eliminate vehicle trips altogether. 

We need fuel efficient vehicles, but this crisis has also shown us the deep value of having other transportation options, especially for those who need it the most. Over 600,000 transit commuters work at hospitals, in doctor’s offices, or as home health providers; 165,000 people take transit to jobs in grocery stores or pharmacies; and 150,000 workers in social services commute on transit. Transit is essential now more than ever, and it will be essential to getting our economy back up and running again.

We need more robust federal support for transit operations so buses and trains can provide frequent and reliable service. We also need a better way to fund projects that build new or expand existing transit service. Across the country, there are dozens of projects trying to get off the ground, collectively hoping for more than $23 billion in federal support. To reduce emissions and provide options other than driving, local transit agencies need a reliable federal partner. 

While the clean air across the country is welcome but also a painful reminder that we’re in a crisis, it also shows us what could be possible if we found ways to reduce driving and remove even just a small share of cars off the road. But to do that, we need to give people cleaner options. This week’s latest action proves once again that the administration is moving in the wrong direction. 

Here’s what Transportation for America has been up to this March

With COVID-19 throwing public transportation into an existential crisis, Transportation for America mobilized to preserve America’s most essential transportation service—and we did, with Congress agreeing to $25 billion in emergency assistance for transit operations last week. But while the news has understandably been consumed by COVID-19, the pandemic hasn’t been the only thing on our plates. 

March Madness might have been cancelled, but it’s certainly been a crazy month in America—and crazy busy at Transportation for America. We started the month in report-a-palooza, gearing up to release two landmark reports—and then the global pandemic struck the United States. 

Even though we’ve been working from home, we’re still laser-focused on our mission: to work towards a transportation system that safely, affordably and conveniently connects people of all means and abilities to jobs, services, and opportunity through multiple modes of travel. So here’s what else we’ve been up to. 

Exposing the congestion con

The U.S. spends billions every year to “relieve congestion.” But building new and widening existing highways only makes traffic worse. 

The Congestion Con, our report released earlier this month, found that congestion increased in regions that built new and widened existing freeways, regardless of population growth. Between 1993 and 2017, the U.S. increased the number of lane-miles in the largest 100 urbanized areas by 42 percent on average, significantly outstripping the 32 percent population growth in those regions over the same period. Yet this strategy has utterly failed to “solve” the problem at hand—delay is up in those urbanized areas by a staggering 144 percent.

You can read our full report or check out our webinar on the report with T4America Director Beth Osborne, Strong Towns Co-Founder and President Chuck Marohn, and Los Angeles DOT Transportation Planner Mariana Valdivia. 

A Green New Deal for Transportation 

The original Green New Deal, released in February 2019 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Senator Ed Markey (MA), catapulted discussion about an equitable transition to a carbon-neutral economy into the mainstream. But it had one glaring omission: how federal transportation policy and development patterns make it impossible to reduce transportation emissions. 

A new report—A Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation—fills those gaps. Co-written by T4America, TransitCenter, Data for Progress and the Ian L. McHarg Center for Urbanism and Ecology, this Green New Deal gives transportation policy the same visionary makeover other sectors received in the original plan to show what we could achieve if our transportation and climate goals were aligned. Download the full report.

New polling shows that Americans support expanding public transit by 77-15 margin

What we always knew to be true is now backed up with polling: Voters want more transportation options. This month, T4America—alongside the same partners behind the Green New Deal for Transportation—released a new polling memo that found exactly that. 

The data reinforces many of the same results we’ve seen in our polling over the years: voters are prepared to spend more on public transit and want to orient government spending toward improving existing infrastructure. While many rely on cars, a majority said they want to have other options to get around each day. Democrats and Republicans agree that the government should be prioritizing fixing our roads and helping with congestion in our cities.

You can download the full polling memo here, and get the highlights in this post from  Emily Mangan.  

2.8 million essential workers use transit to get to their jobs

A new report from TransitCenter finds that 2.8 million transit riders are considered “essential workers” during the COVID-19 emergency, underscoring just how essential it is to keep transit running. Under normal circumstances, they account for more than a third of total transit commuters in the country. 

Transit is part of the public health response to COVID-19. Transit agencies across the country transport millions of essential personnel—including hospital staff, grocery store workers, and pharmacists—to and from jobs everyday. It’s essential to keep transit running frequently and reliably to get these workers where they need to go as millions of others are forced to forgo their usual transit trips to abide by “shelter in place” mandates.

The latest report from TransitCenter finds that nationwide over 600,000 transit commuters work at hospitals, in doctor’s offices, or as home health providers; 165,000 people take transit to jobs in grocery stores or pharmacies; and 150,000 workers in social services commute on transit. On a normal day before this crisis, essential workers accounted for 38 percent of transit commuters in New York City, 33 percent in Seattle, and 36 percent in Miami.

Now that transit agencies across the country have started to reduce service frequency and cut routes due to financial shortfalls and lost fare revenue, many of these essential workers can’t easily get to work. With less frequent service, buses and subways are more likely to be crowded and therefore unsafe due to the inability to adequately keep a safe distance from others. 

If service stays frequent, TransitCenter writes, “at stops, stations, and on vehicles, commuters will have space to distance themselves from each other, protecting themselves and others from potential virus spread.” Maintaining frequent transit service will help these workers stay safe and healthy. 

According to a previous report put out earlier this week, transit agencies could see an annual shortfall of $26-$38 billion. It’s welcome news that Congress has struck a deal to provide $25 billion in emergency aid for transit, but we’ll need sustained help from Congress to keep service running during this pandemic and keep millions of essential workers working. And we’ll need transit to be able to return to full strength in the aftermath of this crisis and help fuel our recovery by carrying millions of people back to work. 

Lessons from the last Recession 

What would it look like if transit service is unable to survive through the pandemic and bounce back with reliable service to help fuel our economic recovery? We don’t have to guess—we can look back at what happened during the Great Recession a decade ago. Because of declining sales tax revenues, agencies were being forced to cut service, raise fares, and lay off employees—even as transit ridership was actually on the upswing back then. At T4America, we chronicled the impact on riders, and gathered hundreds of stories from real people who were affected: 

I work closing shift at a restaurant in downtown Sacramento and take the bus to and from work five days a week. I get off work at 10:40 and the last bus is at 10:50 so I have to run to make it. Sometimes I need to stay late to finish closing the restaurant after a busy night and don’t get a bus. The taxi fare is $40 to get home. Now the bus schedule might change with reduced hours. I don’t want to get a car because it is expensive, dangerous, and I don’t have a license to drive. Driving without a license will be my only option with the new hours.  Pablo – Sacramento, CA

I live in North San Diego county and because of transit routes being canceled I have been unable to take better paying jobs and it has cut down on recreational activities. It takes longer to go to the grocery store, I have to walk farther after I get off the bus and times have been changed so I end up missing appointments. Leah – Encinitas, CA

The cuts in the bus service occurred a few years ago. The one that has been difficult to adjust to, is [the route] by the hospital where I have doctor’s appointments. The service was cut from one hour to every half-hour. If I don’t want to wait too long, I can walk a few blocks to another stop, but it is a more difficult walk for me as I am blind, and the crossing of one of the streets is somewhat more dangerous. I prefer to take the bus instead of using the ADA paratransit service when I can. Janet – Hartford, CT

That’s just a small slice of what we heard 10 years ago when transit agencies were struggling in the face of a recession. Transit service is vital today and Congress’ plan to provide transit agencies with $25 billion in emergency assistance will provide a lifeline—for now. But we don’t know how long this crisis will continue. And we’ll never be able to get our economy back on its feet without robust transit service in cities large and small that collectively move millions of people.

Congress heard you: deal struck with $25 billion in emergency funding for transit

Members of Congress never hear thank you enough for a job well done. Let’s change that. Please send a thank you to your members of Congress today—and remind them to continue prioritizing transit in the months ahead.

Early yesterday morning, congressional leaders and the White House agreed to a $2 trillion COVID-19 economic stabilization plan that includes $25 billion emergency direct assistance to transit agencies, at a time when agencies’ revenue is plummeting, as well as more than $1 billion for passenger rail. This is a huge victory, and it wouldn’t have been possible without your thousands of messages and calls to Congress and our letter to House and Senate leadership. But there’s still more work to do. 

A Chicago “L” platform. Photo by Paul Sableman on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

When the Senate first released a draft of its COVID-19 economic package, airlines got emergency funding. But public transportation—the bedrock of our transportation infrastructure that connects millions of Americans to jobs, schools, services and opportunities every single day—got nothing. But it didn’t stay that way for long. Thanks to an outpouring of advocacy, early yesterday morning Congress agreed to a deal that includes $25 billion in direct, emergency assistance to transit agencies. 

Without this infusion of emergency funding, transit would be unlikely to survive through the pandemic. We can’t afford for transit to stop running—especially now, as transit plays a huge role in connecting millions of people to their jobs in healthcare, grocery stores, and other essential businesses. In fact, 36 percent of transit riders are workers in essential industries, such as nurses and medical technicians. 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.

This critical emergency funding would never have been included without your voices saying that “transit is essential.” Many of you were part of sending thousands of messages and calls to Congress through our action. Our letter to House and Senate leadership with the Union of Concerned Scientists was signed by 248 elected officials, local governments and organizations in less than 24 hours. 

The $25 billion will be given to transit agencies based on the existing formulas that are used to give out annual capital funds. The bill clarifies that these funds are intended specifically for operating expenses related to the coronavirus public health emergency beginning on January 20, 2020, and should be used for operating costs to maintain service, lost revenue due to the coronavirus emergency, as well as the purchase of personal protective equipment, and paying for the administrative leave of operations personnel due to loss of service. The $25 billion includes $13.9 billion for urban areas and $1.8 billion that will go to transit in rural areas, with additional funds for state of good repair and high density cities, largely in the northeast. Some have estimated the amounts potentially going to each city based on recent allocations, though stay tuned for concrete details. This post from Jeff Davis at Eno is a helpful breakdown of all transportation funding in the package. 

But we’re not done yet, and more will be needed. A new report from TransitCenter estimates that transit agencies will experience losses this year anywhere between $26-$38 billion—potentially much higher than the emergency funding in this deal. Transit agencies will need more operating funds to guarantee that they can run enough trains and buses to avoid overcrowding and maintain social distancing. We can’t put America’s frontline workers at increased risk. 

Congress is already considering another bill to stimulate the economy. We will continue to work hard to ensure that public transportation receives more operating support in this bill. 

We’ll have more information soon on how you can help guarantee that public transportation receives the funding it needs to connect Americans to jobs, services and opportunities now and when this pandemic is over. Keep in touch with us: Subscribe to our email list and follow us on Twitter.

Release: Senate deal provides vital $25 billion lifeline to ensure essential public transportation service can continue

WASHINGTON, DC — After news of the Senate’s tentative agreement on a $2 trillion stabilization package that included $25 billion in emergency operating assistance for transit, Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America, released this statement:

“Public transit provides essential service for millions of Americans each day. When this deal is finalized, Congress will have provided a major lifeline for this vital public service to weather the most immediate impacts of a massive loss of ridership. After starting with zero dollars for transit in initial negotiations, we especially praise Senate leadership for negotiating the deal to ensure that transit can continue moving millions of essential workers during this crisis. Workers classified as essential during the COVID-19 emergency account for 36 percent of total transit commuters in the United States, according to research released just this week by TransitCenter. We applaud the White House, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, and Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy for their work to reach this agreement. 

“Thanks to this deal, essential transit service has a better chance to survive until this unprecedented public health crisis subsides and we will need to depend on transit service to move millions of people and get the economy moving once again. 

“Transit riders, advocates, business leaders, elected leaders and the other thousands of people who wrote or called their Senators sent a clear message to Congress: transit is essential.

“Transit agencies will still face massive deficits and more will need to be done. Impacts from COVID-19 will cost U.S. transit agencies $26-$38 billion annually, according to other research also published by TransitCenter, depending on how long the crisis continues and the extent of the measures the nation undertakes to try and avoid the worst potential impacts.

“We are grateful to Congress for prioritizing the millions of people who rely on transit every day with this deal. And we are eager to continue bringing their voices to Congress as they consider further action to stabilize the economy and build a foundation for a long-term recovery.”

COVID-19 will cost transit agencies $26-$38 billion, TransitCenter estimates

We need you to take action to save transit: Please email and call your member of Congress asking them to support emergency funding for transit agencies. It only takes a minute.

In a new report, TransitCenter estimates the gargantuan funding shortfalls that U.S. transit agencies will experience due to impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic. Unprecedented drops in ridership, reduced economic activity, and increased costs to keep personnel and essential riders (including healthcare workers) safe are driving a funding gap that is only projected to grow. 

Transit agencies are doing a lot to slow the spread of COVID-19: They’re connecting healthcare workers to their jobs, urging non-essential workers to stay home, and cancelling fare collection in order to keep operators safe. And they’re bleeding money doing so. 

In a new report, public transportation foundation TransitCenter estimates that impacts from COVID-19 will cost U.S. transit agencies $26-$38 billion annually. This huge shortfall is being caused by rapidly decreasing revenue (a combination of low ridership and reduced sales tax receipts from an economy quickly coming to a standstill) and increased costs to combat the virus. 

TransitCenter calculated low-end and high-end estimates of what COVID-19 means for agencies’ budgets. The low-end estimate anticipates 75 percent decline in fare revenue; and high-end, 100 percent. 

The reality for many American transit agencies will be somewhere in the middle of these two estimates. Ridership on Washington, DC’s Metro dropped 85 percent, and the agency projects an unprecedented loss of $52 million a month. Chicago’s transit system saw rail ridership down 75 percent and bus use down 59 percent. BART in San Francisco says a sustained ridership loss of 85 percent and a 50 percent reduction of economic activity could reduce BART’s monthly revenues by $55 million. And New York City’s MTA is requesting $4 billion to stay afloat. (Trip-planning app Transit is documenting the unprecedented drops in ridership all over the world.) 

But service cuts won’t cut it, especially as transit agencies “must operate enough service so that riders are not subject to crowded vehicles,” according to the report. 

This means one thing: Congress cannot hesitate and must provide transit agencies with immediate emergency funding. Without emergency funding, transit agencies will be unable to get back to work once this crisis is over. That means millions of Americans will be stuck in place, even when we no longer have to stay at home, making it even harder for our economy to recover.

TAKE ACTION NOW

The time to rescue transit is now. The economic impacts will be far worse if we stand by and let it burn to the ground first and try to rebuild it tomorrow.

Transit is a public good—let’s treat it that way


Across the country, transit agencies are urging people to stay home to protect public health. The steep decline in ridership over the past week due to the COVID-19 outbreak has caused transit to enter an unprecedented fiscal crisis. But Congress refuses to recognize how urgently transit needs support.

Send a message to your representatives in Congress: we must save transit before it’s too late.

Take action

Public transit is just that—public. It’s a public service and a public good that millions of Americans rely on to access jobs, healthcare, pharmacies, and groceries. And right now, transit agencies across the country are taking a huge hit from dramatic decline in ridership due to COVID-19.

The amount of money transit agencies large and small are losing is staggering. Ridership on Washington, DC’s Metro dropped 85 percent, and the agency projects an unprecedented loss of $52 million a month. Chicago’s transit system saw rail ridership down 75 percent and bus use down 59 percent. BART in San Francisco says a sustained ridership loss of 85 percent and a 50 percent reduction of economic activity could reduce BART’s monthly revenues by $55 million. And New York City’s MTA is requesting $4 billion to stay afloat.

The stories of small transit agencies suspending service are also beginning to emerge. Greater Glens Falls Transit in Upstate New York plans to suspend all service in a few days. Green Bay Metro Transit in Wisconsin stopped regular public transportation service on March 16. Macatawa Area Express, which serves Holland, MI, suspended all bus routes March 18. And this is just the beginning.

Even as their ridership plummets and their ability to survive is in question, transit agencies and public officials are urging people not to take transit. It’s the right thing to do to slow the spread of the pandemic. But while public transit takes a hit for the common good, airlines are trying to entice customers with cheap airfares.

Transit is a public service and deserves support from Congress right now, not in some later stimulus package. By then—whenever “then” is—it could be too late. Senate Republicans unveiled their latest economic relief package on March 19, and not a single dollar is dedicated to supporting transit.

For transit, short-term financial losses now could easily damage the level of service transit agencies are able to provide in the long-term. It’s not as simple as turning on a spigot and starting up transit service again. It could take years for transit agencies to recover from the loss of fares and tax revenue and provide frequent service again. Robust transit service demands skilled staff—drivers, operators, mechanics, engineers, and numerous others—who need to be retained for the future.

The transit system is an extension of the healthcare system and part of the healthcare response to COVID-19. Healthcare and other essential workers need the system to get to their jobs and we need to support transit to ensure that it can provide robust service in the future. We need Congress to act and treat transit like a public good.

Take action

 

Transit agencies sound the alarm: COVID-19 is a long-term threat to service

We need you to take action to save transit: Please email and call your member of Congress asking them to support emergency funding for transit agencies. It only takes a minute.

The COVID-19 pandemic is decimating transit agencies’ budgets. Without emergency assistance from Congress, public transportation won’t be there when this crisis subsides—yet the Senate Republicans’ proposed stimulus bill doesn’t give transit a cent. Join transit agencies across the country and tell Congress that transit needs emergency funding. 

“Empty Metro” by Mike Maguire on Flickr’s Creative Commons

Transit ridership is plummeting as millions of Americans practice critically important social distancing to slow the spread of COVID-19—and transit agencies are happy about it. Both Washington, DC and New York City’s subway systems tweeted rapidly falling ridership numbers with joy, praising people for taking social distancing seriously. 

But despite the praise, transit agencies also know that this loss of ridership is devastating their budgets. New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Washington, DC region’s Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) know that this is a recipe for long-term service reductions. Both agencies are calling for emergency funding from Congress, with the MTA specifically calling for $4 billion. “No agency of our size can find additional billions in savings equivalent to the damages we have and will sustain as a result of this pandemic,” MTA CEO Pat Foye said in the letter to New York’s Congressional delegation. “This is a national disaster that requires a national response.” Washington’s Metro is projecting a $52 million a month operating deficit.

Revenue from local or state sales taxes make up the other biggest portion of transit agencies’ budgets, and with the local economy being virtually shut down in many places, those funds will be rapidly dwindling as well. Increased costs from additional cleaning and measures to protect employees, such as the purchase of gloves, face masks, hand sanitizer, and other protective equipment, are evaporating funds faster than normal, too. 

That’s why with only 24 hours’ notice over 220 elected officials, cities, transit agencies and organizations across the country signed a letter written by T4America and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) urging Congress to provide transit agencies with nearly $13 billion in emergency funding. We’re thrilled that so many people stepped up to save transit with such short notice. But it isn’t enough: the Senate Republicans’ stimulus bill was released yesterday, and it includes not one dollar for transit or Amtrak. 

We need you to step up for public transportation. Please call and email your members of Congress today. Demand them to support emergency funding for transit. 

TAKE ACTION NOW

Without federal financial assistance, many transit agencies and paratransit service providers will be forced to dramatically reduce or eliminate critical service. This could cut off health care and other workers from jobs, and make it even harder for the economy to recover once this crisis subsides. 

Please take action today. Transit needs you.

Release: Over 200 transit agencies, cities, and organizations urge Congress to pass emergency funding for transit

Over 220 elected officials, transit agencies, and organizations urge Congress to provide $13 billion in emergency funding for public transportation to stave off service cuts and job layoffs, and preserve service for the future. (Update, 3.23.20: Now 248 signers!)

WASHINGTON, DC: With only 24 hours’ notice, over 240 elected officials, cities and organizations signed a letter written by Transportation for America (T4America) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) urging Congress to provide transit agencies with nearly $13 billion in emergency funding and take other steps to ensure that transit agencies survive the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to provide safe and reliable access to jobs, schools, and services for millions of Americans. 

Due to critical social distancing practices required to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, public transit agencies are experiencing significant decreases in ridership and farebox revenue while simultaneously incurring increased costs for additional cleaning. Without federal financial assistance, many transit agencies and paratransit service providers will be forced to dramatically reduce or eliminate critical service. 

The 248 signers include elected officials, local governments, transit agencies, businesses and organizations engaged in advocacy regarding climate, road safety, accessibility and other critical issues. Many cities have signed the letter, including Philadelphia, San Jose, Boise, as well as transit agencies that include IndyGo, SFMTA, VIA (San Antonio), Charlotte Area Transit System , Utah Transit Authority, and the Virginia Railway Express, to name a few 

“As the spread of COVID-19 continues to radically alter Americans’ daily lives and futures, guaranteeing that transit will be running through the crisis to connect people with food and health care is critical,” said Beth Osborne, the director of Transportation for America. “We also need transit to operate at full strength when this pandemic ends to support our economic recovery. Failing to support public transportation during the Great Recession left millions of Americans stranded for years afterward when people needed reliable, safe, and convenient access to jobs and services the most. It will happen again if Congress doesn’t step up to protect and preserve our country’s basic transportation infrastructure that millions depend on each day.”

The letter asks for direct financial assistance carefully targeted to the agencies impacted the most—rather than more funding funneled through the existing federal transportation program and formulas which are poorly suited to provide the kind of targeted, flexible assistance that agencies need.

The letter also asks Congress to waive the restriction barring agencies from using their capital funds on operations, so that transit agencies can fill gaps today and avoid future service cuts. But if they do this without also providing direct financial assistance, Congress will only solve one problem today while creating enormous problems tomorrow: reducing the capital funds that agencies need to keep up with mounting repair backlogs, basic maintenance, and the need to continue modernizing their fleets.

The signatories also request that FTA not use this current year’s plummeting ridership figures to determine next year’s transit funding amounts awarded through federal formulas.

The full letter is available to view here.

What would a Green New Deal for transportation look like?

Current federal transportation policy is diametrically opposed to climate action. The Green New Deal framework released a year ago mostly left that unchanged. But a new report T4America contributed to fills in those gaps and gives transportation policy the same visionary makeover to show what we could achieve if our transportation and climate goals were aligned.

When the Green New Deal was first released last year, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne had some pointed critiques.

The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gasses in the United States and it’s also the one that federal officials have the most control over with the power of the purse. Yet the Green New Deal is largely devoid of the bold reimagining of federal transportation spending which encourages more roads, more driving, more sprawl, and more emissions.

The Green New Deal as originally introduced completely ignores the role development patterns play in driving the climate crisis and fails to align our transportation policy with our environmental goals and aspirations (to say nothing of what people actually want from our transportation system). Though the Green New Deal is a broad policy framework, that’s a glaring oversight for something billed as a comprehensive answer to climate change.

We also know that current federal policy is actively undermining any progress on achieving real climate progress. The way we distribute money incentivizes more road building and more driving. The amount we spend on transit is pitiful compared to the amount spent on highways. Americans want more transportation options, but are stuck with their cars. Electric buses would be welcome, but too many people can’t safely walk to the bus stop because our streets are designed to prioritize high-speed traffic over safety.

So what would our federal transportation policy look like if the Green New Deal reimagined it? How would we invest limited transportation dollars to align our environmental ambitions with our policy? In a new report that we contributed to—A Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation—we outline how federal transportation policy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by:

  1. Putting the majority of Americans within walking distance of frequent, high-quality public transit by 2030, by providing agencies with operating assistance to run more buses and trains, expanding overall funding for transit projects, and encouraging transit-oriented development.
  2. Incentivizing and requiring communities to design transit-friendly streets and safe roadways for all users.
  3. Prioritizing roadway maintenance over expansion, and ensuring that any new road capacity meets environmental goals.
  4. Ensuring a “just transition” that creates secure, well-paying jobs and funds training and apprenticeship programs in the transit industry.
  5. Providing funding for research into barriers to equitable transit provision.
  6. Creating an EV incentive program weighted by income, geography, and vehicle size.

A better transportation system

A Green New Deal done right provides an opportunity to break out of the status quo and do transportation better. It’s an opportunity to reevaluate our transit and roadway systems, invest in electric vehicles, and broaden our conception of frontline communities in this sector—namely, the suburban and urban communities where public transit service is sparse or non-existent and owning a personal vehicle is all but required.

We can use the transportation sector as a strategic lever toward a Green New Deal by tackling our highest sources of carbon emissions, putting millions of people to work upgrading and repairing existing infrastructure rather than building new roads. Bringing our road and transit systems into a state of good repair over the next 10 years could support or create over 6.6 million jobs across the U.S. economy.

By making our cities and suburbs easy and safe to navigate without driving, we’ll also equitably grow our economy. In an America with abundant transit and safe streets for walking, biking, and rolling, more jobs will be within reach of people with low incomes, and transportation costs will consume far less of their earnings. What’s more, with less driving we’ll have less congestion. Our expensive gambit to build our way out of congestion hasn’t worked, but a Green New Deal could.

By providing more options, we’ll enable millions of people to take advantage of jobs and opportunities throughout their cities and regions, reducing the current disparities in mobility linked to race, economic status, age, or ability. The incidence of asthma, cardiovascular disease, and other chronic ailments caused by car pollution—which disproportionately afflict communities of color—will fall.

Getting transportation and climate policy right

It’s striking that many climate plans almost completely ignore transportation and land use. But our new report makes it clear what a huge opportunity we would be squandering without more direct, visionary action with a Green New Deal.

We have an enormous opportunity to both reduce emissions and rethink our transportation system. Let’s focus on the outcomes we want to achieve, not just how much money we’re going to spend. We can’t keep doing the same old transportation policy. Download the full report to learn more.

Voters want and need more transportation options

New polling conducted by YouGov on behalf of T4America and our partners finds that Americans support expanding public transit by a 77-15 margin—even as many transit agencies face a growing generational funding crisis brought on by COVID-19.

Americans want a better transportation system that provides them meaningful options. This week, we released new polling results alongside our partners at TransitCenter, Data for Progress, the Ian L. McHarg Center for Urbanism and Ecology, and the Socio-Spatial Climate Collaborative. It helps us answer a crucial question: what do voters really want out of our transportation system?

Unsurprisingly, voters want more transportation options and to see tangible outcomes from their investments in the system. 

The data reinforces many of the same results we’ve seen in our polling over the years: voters are prepared to spend more on public transit and want to orient government spending toward improving existing infrastructure. While many rely on cars, a majority said they want to have other options to get around each day. Democrats and Republicans agree that the government should be prioritizing fixing our roads and helping with congestion in our cities.

For too many, driving is the only option

Car use is prevalent among voters in the United States, but that doesn’t mean that everyone wants to drive everywhere, all the time, for every single trip. Far from it. By and large, voters feel they have insufficient alternatives to driving and have no choice but to use their cars as much as they do. 

Among those who reported a car was their primary mode of transportation, about 80 percent agreed that they have “no choice” but to drive as much as they do. Just over half of car users report wishing they had more options, and about the same share of car owners said that public transit was not convenient for their needs.

Surprisingly, voters on net support a policy to reduce the number of personal automobiles on the road. By a 47-38 margin voters agree that the government should aim to reduce the number of vehicles in the U.S. over the next few years. This includes a clear 68-12 net support among Democrats and 43-38 net positive support among Independents as well. About 23 percent of Republicans somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement.

Voters want more options, but are they willing to pay for transit? The answer is a resounding “yes!”

Voters support transit

Even though many Americans don’t have access to a convenient transit network, they still believe transit has enormous benefits. The polling shows that 66 percent of voters believe their own communities would benefit from expanding public transit while about 77 percent of voters believe the US overall would benefit from expanding public transit. This support includes near unanimity among Democrats, 90 percent of whom agree. 

Overall, Americans clearly support having better public transportation systems. This basic conclusion is robust across a variety of political, demographic, and geographic factors. 

To have better public transit, people are willing to pay for it. Nearly four times as many voters support increasing public transportation funding as support reducing it. There’s even no appetite for cuts to investments in public transportation, even accounting for party identification and geography. Less than 1 in 5 Republicans support cutting transportation spending. As recent historical data has borne out, when voters go to the ballot to raise taxes to invest in transit, those measures pass at around a 70 percent clip.

Across the political spectrum, voters support increasing funding by a 77-15 margin. When asked how much should be spent on public transportation, the average response was $0.33 of every federal transportation dollar; current public transportation spending is only about $0.20 per dollar. Americans are clearly ready to shift transportation dollars toward transit. 

Broad agreement on fix it first

Most popular of all, and what we’ve been saying for years, is that fixing our existing infrastructure before building something new is enormously popular across the political divide. The polling indicates that not only do voters support additional spending on maintaining existing roads and bridges, they want new policies that would obligate local governments to do so. 

Fully 79 percent of voters agreed that the government should fix existing roads before building new ones. About 73 percent support a new set of obligations on state governments to justify any new roads, and 61 percent support an outright moratorium on new roads for ten years as a means of reorienting local governments toward repairing infrastructure.

There is bipartisan agreement in the electorate that we should be prioritizing maintenance, but Congress is ignoring what their constituents want. 

Give people options, but also give them EVs

We found that in addition to wanting more and better transit across the country, voters also want to be able to afford an electric vehicle. Subsidies that would increase the availability of electric vehicles were widely popular.

We also found support for “generous rebates” for electric vehicles that specifically help those living in areas where a stronger transit network is less feasible. About 69 percent of Democrats supported while Republicans only narrowly opposed rebates, by a 37-47 margin.

What voters want

American voters want a national transportation system that provides more options, that frees them from total dependence on cars, and that fixes our existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, current policy is designed to achieve precisely none of that: we underfund transit, over invest in roads, and favor new construction over maintenance. It’s clear that voters want to build a better transportation system—and they support the policies that would make that possible. Now it’s time for Congress to act. In our new report released today—A Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation—we show how Congress could fundamentally restructure federal transportation policy to achieve the basic outcomes that Americans support, while also protecting our environment, health, and pocketbooks. 

Coronavirus will have huge impacts on transit systems—here’s how Congress should help

Fired up? Please take action and tell your member of Congress to support emergency assistance for transit agencies.

Congress and the president are considering ways to provide much-needed boosts to the economy due to the impacts of the novel coronavirus. But simply pouring money into the existing transportation program as a whole will fail to help the people who rely on transit to access the health care system and will have impacts on transit service that will last for years to come. Here are some ways Congress could provide targeted assistance to transit and the people that rely on it in the weeks and months ahead.

MTA New York City Transit sanitizes stations and subway cars. (Marc A. Hermann / MTA New York City Transit)

As local and state tax revenues cratered during the recession of 2008-2009, transit agencies were forced to make enormous cuts to service and lay off thousands of employees, which had devastating impacts on riders and communities. T4America covered the massive impacts across the country as millions of people were left stranded in the wake of these massive cuts. As just one example, MARTA in Atlanta eliminated somewhere around half of their bus service and train headways grew to 30 minutes at certain times of day. Even after the crisis, MARTA spent the better part of the decade recovering and slowly adding that lost service back, with little assistance from the federal government—as did hundreds or thousands of other transit agencies.

Heeding public health officials’ advice, including “social distancing,” is critical to slowing the spread of COVID-19 cases. But these essential practices also will bring unfortunate side effects: cancelled events, new work from home policies, and other ways of practicing social distancing will result in millions of transit trips not taken and profoundly affect transit agencies’ viability. Revenue from riders makes up a huge piece of transit agencies’ budgets, and transit ridership will drop across the country. At the same time, transit agencies are investing in extra cleaning supplies and increased cleaning protocols, leading to increased costs which exacerbate the budgetary pressure from reduced ridership and revenue. 

The novel coronavirus will undoubtedly bring massive economic impacts on transit. If what happened in 2009 and 2010 repeats itself and Congress fails to take proper action, we will leave millions stranded without access to healthcare and other essential services, and not just in the short-term. Public transit service is and will continue to be vital and Congress must take strong action to support transit service—and ensure that transit will be robust and ready when this crisis is over.

We understand that this is a challenging time for all, and many sectors of our economy are in need of support. But we must ensure that investments made in transportation are targeted to the most impacted and most critical sectors, including public transportation. This will better address our needs today, and prepare our system for when this public health crisis subsides.  Policymakers should consider these principles when developing transportation policy as economic stimulus. 

1. Target funding to hardest hit transit agencies. 

This is not a spread-the-peanut-butter exercise. Regions are going to be impacted in different ways, with some losing ridership to a much greater extent than others.  Assistance should be appropriately targeted to the various needs of transit agencies. Sending more money to all transit agencies through the existing program is not targeted in this way and is not sufficient to address this problem.

2. Support transit agencies with operational assistance to avert service cuts or fare increases. 

In the last recovery act in 2009, additional transit funding was given for capital investment. During this crisis, it will be necessary to invest in public transit operations to ensure agencies are able to continue providing their essential services, especially to those who rely on it to reach medical services, and health care workers who rely on it to get to work. It won’t do any good to keep giving transit agencies money to buy new buses or railcars if they can’t afford to run them each day from A to B. Transit agencies will need money to preserve service.

Agencies receive money each year from the highway trust fund, dictated by federal formulas. But those funds are for capital spending, not operating. Current law (49 USC 5307) prohibits the use of these dollars for operational expenses in communities over 200,000 in population and therefore cannot address the loss of funds at the farebox used to fund transit operations in our larger metro areas where transit provides the greatest number of rides.

3. Prioritize investments which address equity and access. 

While loss of transit service is always an inconvenience, to those who depend on transit with no other option it can be particularly dangerous at this time. Those who rely on transit to reach medical care need to know that service will be there. And getting everyone who needs medical care to it early is essential to prevent a greater spread of this virus. In addition, there are scores of healthcare workers who will continue to need reliable transit service to get to their jobs caring for the sick.

While we encourage policymakers to consider these principles, we recommend the following specific policies to support public transit agencies and riders: 

Responding to the immediate crisis:

  • Provide targeted funding for transit operating expenses. This should address revenue shortfalls as a result of lost ridership, as well as increased expenses due to more cleaning. Funding should be targeted to those agencies with the most demonstrated need.  
  • Provide additional funding for purchasing personal protective equipment (PPE) (including gloves, antibacterial sanitizer, soap, etc). 
  • Provide funding necessary to cover costs for employees who must be quarantined, and any overtime necessary to make up for reduced numbers of employees. 

Sustaining essential service beyond the crisis: 

Traditional funding formulas are based on previous year ridership. If ridership were to go down this year, that could not only impact current budgets, but it would reduce what agencies receive through their formulas for next year. 

  • To protect impacted agencies from future cuts, Congress should create a hold harmless provision, or direct the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to use ridership numbers from a year previous to the crisis.

Dear governor, our congestion “solutions” have failed

Governors and legislators in state houses across the country have a major role to play in ending the congestion con and spending our money on projects that will actually improve our lives—rather than just temporarily shortening some commutes by 30 seconds until the congestion returns. Help us make that a reality by sending your local officials a message.

In the United States, conventional wisdom holds that the solution to traffic congestion is more and wider roads. But the conventional wisdom is wrong. Really wrong.

It’s been well documented for years that wider roads create more traffic rather than reduce it. Research showing this dates back to the 1960s and Transportation for America’s new report—The Congestion Con—shows clearly that on average congestion has more than doubled in the 100 most populous urbanized areas since 1993, despite billions spent on freeway expansions.

Unfortunately, the state officials in charge of directing how we spend transportation dollars haven’t gotten this memo and keep advocating for more roads as a solution to congestion.

It’s time to end the con. Send a message to your state legislators and governor to make sure they have this new data.

Send a message

There are dozens of prominent examples around the country that demonstrate just how futile highway widenings are, like the Katy Freeway widening in Houston, TX or the I-405 widening in Los Angeles. Both epitomize induced demand, where new lanes just entice more people to drive. More insidiously, new freeways also spur sprawl by making previously remote land more readily accessible.

Governors are sometimes the worst offenders here. Many have grand—i.e. expensive—highway plans to “solve congestion” and they appoint transportation secretaries that will make their pet projects a reality. In many cases, governors see their department of transportation (DOT) not as a holistic transportation department, but as a highway department. DOTs could just as easily be put to work eliminating our road maintenance backlog or building robust networks of biking, walking, and transit infrastructure that would reduce traffic burdens instead of digging us into a deeper congestion hole.

But governors are absolutely not the only ones to blame here: state legislatures can and do set limits for or give directives to DOTs through legislation and oversight. Legislators are often just as complicit in the congestion con, whether they know it or not.

Take action and make sure elected leaders in your state have the information they need to make informed transportation investments.

Take action

Real solutions for real relief

It’s time to break this vicious cycle. Instead of spending huge sums of public money on ineffective highway widenings, let’s instead focus on real solutions that can deliver real congestion relief.

The Congestion Con report details five policy recommendations. While many are targeted at the federal government—and would be most effective if implemented nationally—states can and should move forward with these policy changes on their own. In fact, state action almost always precedes major federal policy shifts and states should lead by example.

First, we need a new measure. Using vehicle delay as a proxy for congestion is 1) overly simplistic, 2) car-centric and ignores everyone else not in a personal vehicle, and 3) leads to an expensive focus on spot improvements instead of system-wide solutions. With new technologies that are readily available, DOTs could instead start measuring accessibility—what jobs and services can one easily reach and how. An accessibility measure is much more robust, includes all travel modes—walking, biking, transit, driving—and allows us to more accurately evaluate other important information like trip times, trip lengths, overall travel, mode split, emissions, health impacts, and household transportation expenditures. Some states like Virginia and Hawaii are already using access to prioritize projects for funding and more states should follow their lead.

Second, states should focus on road repair instead of road expansion. As we chronicled in Repair Priorities 2019, states choose to spend about as much money on repairing existing highways as they do building new ones—and the maintenance backlog continues to grow as a result. There is nothing preventing state legislators from directing their state DOT to prioritize repair with highway funding until and unless a certain (high) threshold of roads are in good condition. The federal government has given state DOTs tremendous flexibility to choose how to spend billions in annual highway funds, but in the absence of directives to spend on repair, many shirk that responsibility. The only thing preventing us from reducing our maintenance backlog is the will to act.

Third, we need safer streets for everyone. When streets are designed to prioritize high-speed cars and trucks, it robs people of the ability to walk or bike to their destination, even if it’s nearby. While Congress has a role to play here with the federal Complete Street Act, state legislatures could just as easily dictate that roads surrounded by development be designed for speeds of 35 mph or less.

Fourth, we need to address demand by pricing roads. We will never be able to build enough supply—we have to find ways to reduce travel demand at peak times. The meat of this recommendation is federal: remove restrictions on tolling federal highways and allow the proceeds to be used for other roads, transit, and walking & biking infrastructure. This national restriction on tolling is related to the current hold up on New York City’s congestion pricing plans. But if other states were to pursue congestion pricing in their metro areas as a way to raise more funding to invest in other transportation options, this would put more pressure on the Federal Highway Administration and Congress to change the law.

Finally, we need to curtail sprawl and focus on infill development. A major part of the congestion con is this negative feedback loop: new highway → new development → more traffic → wider highway → more sprawling development → more traffic ad infinitum. On this issue, states can truly lead the way. In Oregon, Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, and other states around the country, legislators are considering or have passed state level bills to remove overly restrictive zoning rules that raise the cost of housing in existing communities and make it easier to build new homes that are closer to jobs, schools, and other destinations. This reduces the pressure to build new roads out to the fringe to support new homes in sprawling locations

Governors and legislators in state houses across the country have a major role to play in ending the congestion con and spending our money on projects that will actually improve our lives—rather than just temporarily shortening some commutes by 30 seconds until the congestion returns. Help us make that a reality by sending your local officials a message.

Contact your state officials