Today, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the Port of Mobile, CSX, and Norfolk Southern (NS) signed a $178 million grant agreement to fund necessary construction between Mobile and New Orleans, an important hurdle for passenger rail service to return to the Gulf Coast.
The signed agreement for a $178 million Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant is a critical step that represents 17 years of concerted efforts toward restoring passenger rail on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. This agreement includes funding for station and rail infrastructure improvements along the route in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, all required for service to return.
“Every step towards the return of passenger rail is a victory for the people who call the Gulf Coast home,” said Transportation for America Chair John Robert Smith. “The past two decades of tireless efforts by the Southern Rail Commission and other champions have made it possible for service to come back even better than before, giving people more freedom to choose how they want to travel.”
This announcement coincides with a groundbreaking for passenger rail in Mobile, Alabama with Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg and other federal leaders, where these funds will be used toward station siding and an ADA-compliant platform. The CRISI will fund station improvements in Mobile and New Orleans, safety improvements along the route, multimodal connection, and rail line improvements. Once these improvements are made, local leaders will be able to create safe routes and welcoming places for all travelers along the Gulf Coast. We look forward to the ultimate result of these efforts: the return of service.
Progress on the Gulf Coast would not have been possible without Senator Wicker’s leadership in creating CRISI and for his steadfast support for this project for the past decade. In addition, Senators Cochran and Hyde-Smith have dedicated invaluable time and resources to the restoration of service.
Transportation for America supports the Southern Rail Commission to champion the efforts to return service in the Gulf Coast and across the Deep South.
One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away from grand openings and toward more resilient transportation infrastructure?
(D. Allen Covey, VDOT)
The problem
Make no mistake, requiring repair and maintenance before expansion would represent a complete reorientation of our transportation program. While some states certainly do better than others, the majority of them are ignoring or deprioritizing certain maintenance needs in favor of building new roads. And arguably none are creating long-term plans for financing the ongoing maintenance of those new roads or bridges. Which is why every five years, we hear the same rhetoric about why we need a massive increase in federal transportation investment to “fix our crumbling roads and bridges,” and why conditions rarely change. It’s a loop cycle.
A few years ago, before the passage of the 2021 five-year infrastructure law (the IIJA), we heard endless speechifying on Capitol Hill about the decaying infrastructure. Thousands upon thousands of deficient bridges. Bad roads. Unfathomable backlogs of neglected maintenance and repair. But with that historic infusion of infrastructure money in hand from the IIJA, state DOTs and a collection of senators lost their minds that USDOT would even deign to suggest that repair be prioritized first with that money.
It shouldn’t be a revolutionary principle: Federal dollars should not be spent on new roads and bridges if our existing ones are at risk of or already breaking down. The need for this reprioritization primarily stems from the staggering lack of priority that maintenance has historically been given. Instead of fulfilling repairs, our dollars are spent on expansion, resulting in the overwhelming 830 billion-dollar maintenance backlog.
If you have a flat tire, you don’t take a cross-country road trip before getting the tire replaced. We should have the same approach to our transportation infrastructure. In this video, bridges in Fife, Washington and East Providence, Rhode Island had to be closed due to safety concerns after decades of delayed maintenance. The closures reduced traffic flows to local businesses, causing significant concerns amongst local business owners seeing their revenues dip. Delayed maintenance also impacts access to necessary resources, such as healthcare, and can exacerbate damages caused by natural disasters, reducing our resilience to extreme events. On the other hand, investing in repairs holds numerous opportunities to improve quality of life and increase economic growth. If we invested only $1 billion per year into resolving delayed maintenance, an estimated 13,000 direct and indirect jobs would be created.
Illustration produced for T4America by visual artist Jean Wei. IG/@weisanboo
Implementing the principle
To reorient our federal program around repair and maintenance we’ll have to get to the root of the problem: policy, the resistance of state DOTs and their elected leadership to this idea, and a mistaken belief that new roads and lanes are the only viable strategy to reduce congestion, connect people to opportunity, and create economic benefits.
Congress came close in 2020 during the run-up to what eventually became the IIJA. In the House of Representatives, a much stronger and superior five-year reauthorization proposal (the INVEST Act) included an amendment from Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL) and Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) that would have enshrined our ix-it-first principle into federal transportation policy. The amendment included three small but transformative changes to the bill:
Require a maintenance plan for building new capacity.
Require benefit-cost analyses (BCAs) on new capacity projects.
Include a range of new performance measures in BCAs.
Although small, these changes would have ensured that our federal dollars were spent responsibly, that expansions would not crumble just a few decades after being built and that new capacity projects have considered a wide range of accurately predicted benefits.
Unfortunately, this and some of the other best parts of the superior INVEST Act were removed during negotiations with the Senate to produce the final 2021 Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA). This amendment is only one example that prioritizing maintenance is not an unpopular opinion, but it does happen to be less popular than a ribbon-cutting photo op. If state’s are going to prioritize spending on maintenance, it has to come from the top. As a former Mississippi DOT Commissioner told us a few years ago, left to their own devices, states will continue taking the blank checks to build new things. “If you want us to prioritize maintenance, then you’re going to have to tell us ‘you gotta do it!’”
Replicating the policies in the INVEST Act would be a good starting point, but the maintenance goals can be strengthened through a few other key details. The federal government could create strict requirements on deferred maintenance before states are permitted to utilize that funding for new builds. A strong example of this are transit formula funds, which currently prioritize funding maintenance over expansion. Furthermore, ties to federal dollars would require the federal government to develop stronger tracking methods on how state funds are being spent on maintenance. Additionally, the federal government should embed additional requirements to more accurately define the beneficiaries of expansion projects. Through stronger BCAs, the federal government can ensure that funds are being spent to improve the quality of life of those living in the communities near new projects.
So, why hasn’t this happened yet?
The longstanding myth that expanded roadways improve congestion has been debunked. Furthermore, expansion actually makes traffic worse. This idea is referred to as induced demand, and is an economic term that illustrates how an increased supply in something will make people want and/or use it more.
But most state DOTs still view expansion as the only tool in their toolbox, and are highly resistant to being good stewards if it comes at the expense of long-planned new highways and expansion projects. Shortly after the 2021 release of the IIJA, Federal Highway Administration Deputy Administrator Stephanie Pollack shared a memo gently urging states to prioritize repair over new capacity projects. As noted earlier, congressional reps carrying water for their state DOTs lost their minds at the humble suggestion (no requirement!) that they should prioritize repair. The outcry was so intense that USDOT had to recall the non-binding memo.
This controversy overshadowed the fact that their voters back home actually believe that repair is the best use of infrastructure dollars, as well as the fact that a majority also believe that new roads or lanes either don’t affect congestion or make it worse. (Focus groups we’ve conducted in the past have also shown that voters are shocked to discover that there are no requirements for repair first. Many assume there are.)
Now is the time for our federal government to ensure that our roads and bridges are in a good state of repair before expanding a system with insufficient plans to ensure it will stand the test of time.
One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away…
When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.
To reshape our transportation system and address staggering maintenance needs, we must prioritize repairing existing infrastructure before expanding our roadways any further.
When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.
(Charlie Vinz, Flickr)
We’ve written a lot about how decision-makers justify spending money on expansions instead of repair, even when we have a $830 billion maintenance backlog on existing highways alone. The idea is that when they add a new lane, they are saving travelers time, primarily by allowing drivers to drive faster. If you’ve been following us for a while, you already know that this logic is fundamentally flawed, but let’s set that aside for a moment.
When we expand roadways at the expense of every other way to travel, we create a transportation system that all but requires owning and driving a personal vehicle for essential trips like going to work, school, or the grocery store. When we then fail to maintain those same roads and bridges, we see travel delays in the form of detours and slowed traffic—delays people must suffer through, because they have no other option.
Because the full transportation system is connected, when one intersection is rendered impassable due to poor maintenance, anyone traveling on the roadways around it can experience disruptions, even if those roads are in perfect condition. If time is money (as transportation officials like to believe), this is reason in itself to invest in more transportation options and maintain our existing infrastructure.
This doesn’t even factor in that every dollar we spend on expansion adds to our overall maintenance deficit, as new lanes and bridges have maintenance needs as well. And thanks to induced demand, new lanes often lead to more driving, which leads to even more wear and tear on our roads. These costs, too, will eventually be shouldered by taxpayers.
There are also real, physical costs to poorly maintained roads and bridges. When you don’t maintain the roof of your house, you end up with even more costs as water damages the interior. It’s the same with roads and bridges. Water percolates through cracked and potholed surface pavement leading to worse damage, leading to expensive rebuilds that could have been averted with proper resurfacing and minor repairs. Bridges that aren’t regularly cleaned, sealed and repainted have shorter lifespans leading to more frequent bridge replacements that are very expensive.
Costs accumulate for travelers as well. Driving over potholes risks damage to personal vehicles, which the city and state likely won’t pay. If pavement is in poor condition, risk of crashes can increase. And then there is the physical risk of driving over a poorly maintained bridge, hoping that it won’t collapse. When the Fern Hollow Bridge collapsed in Pittsburgh in 2022 due to lack of maintenance, a bus and six passenger vehicles fell with it, leading to multiple injuries. When a structurally deficient I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007, 13 people died and 145 more were injured.
You could put it this way: The maintenance costs state and local decision-makers fail to address are all eventually passed on to everyday Americans—to travelers, local business owners, and workers. The costs accumulate in the form of lost time, lost income, damage to personal vehicles, and increased risk of injury. They turn into even more maintenance expenses and higher taxes down the line.
When taxpayer dollars aren’t spent responsibly, we all pay for it, over and over again.
It’s unlikely we’ll see an investment like that again any time soon, which makes our maintenance needs even more concerning. In the next federal infrastructure investment, congressional leaders need to make sure that taxpayer money gets spent wisely. We simply can’t afford to keep this up.
One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away…
When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.
To reshape our transportation system and address staggering maintenance needs, we must prioritize repairing existing infrastructure before expanding our roadways any further.
To reshape our transportation system and address staggering maintenance needs, we must prioritize repairing existing infrastructure before expanding our roadways any further.
This wasteful cycle of expansion and misallocation of resources has created a system with a staggering maintenance deficit and no clear plan to address it. Each new lane has its own maintenance needs, meaning we continue to add to the number of roadways in need of attention. And the intensifying impacts of climate change and extreme weather events, as seen through the above-normal Atlantic hurricane season this year, will create new challenges on all of our infrastructure, further exacerbating our maintenance and investment needs.
A negative return on investment
Transportation agencies use models to predict future traffic and plan the roadway system accordingly. For decades, they’ve used these models to justify costly highway expansions, claiming that expansions are needed to help relieve traffic congestion. Yet billions of dollars have been spent on this strategy, and traffic has only gotten worse. With no requirement to revisit and update these models, we continue to throw our dollars at a solution that simply doesn’t work.
Our ever-expanding roads widen community divides, costing Americans more in travel time, especially if they don’t travel by car. They worsen traffic, meaning Americans spend more time in traffic than before. And low-income communities face the greatest burden, as they are more likely to be located near wide, dangerous roadways and also least likely to have their maintenance needs met.
Americans want to fix it first
Americans have caught on to the congestion con, as 82 percent of voters don’t believe that highway expansions reduce traffic. The most popular long-term solution to reducing traffic in U.S. communities is repairing existing roads—not building new ones.
We need to stop borrowing against the future and instead adopt an approach that values fixing what we have before adding to the system. Prioritizing “fix-it-first” principles would reorient our transportation program to emphasize addressing repair needs before creating new maintenance liabilities. This approach not only begins chipping away at our maintenance backlog, but produces more jobs, enhances safety, and brings roads to an improved state of repair in rural, urban, and suburban communities alike.
The last two decades have proven that pouring money into the same flawed system is failing to make it any better. Delaying investments in repair means that we will only increase the costs of our maintenance needs in the long-run. We cannot afford to continue the status quo. With the next transportation reauthorization bill looming, it is necessary for our federal funding to be focused on achieving a state of good repair and delivering on better economic, environmental, and social outcomes for our communities.
One of our recently launched principles, fix it first, targets maintenance over expansion, advocating for federal highway dollars to be spent repairing old roads and bridges before expanding or building new ones. So, what would it look like in practice to implement this principle into the federal transportation program, to shift our states’ priorities away…
When decision-makers fail to prioritize basic maintenance and repair, everyday Americans pay the price—in increased costs, increased time on the road, and suffering local economies. We can’t keep wasting taxpayer dollars without a clear plan to maintain what we’ve already built.
To reshape our transportation system and address staggering maintenance needs, we must prioritize repairing existing infrastructure before expanding our roadways any further.
While we might have the most extensive highway infrastructure in the world, the U.S. is delivering pitifully poor results compared to our peers when it comes to cost, efficiency, emissions, and safety. What can Congress and USDOT do to invest in the rest?
Under federal transportation policy, funding for highways greatly outpaces transit. Worse, it is hard to overstate how little of total funding has been allocated to building sidewalks and bike routes. For Americans who are unable to drive or lack regular access to a car, the lack of alternative options has very real consequences. In addition, when we fail to invest in opportunities to walk, bike, and take public transit, communities lose out on the wide-scale benefits these options provide. Multimodal transportation investments that make transit and walking more practical options for people promote ecologically and fiscally sustainable options for economic development.
Our system today costs us much more than we think, with poor outcomes for all users, including public health and climate outcomes, which have a disproportionate impact on Black and low-income communities historically marginalized from transportation decision-making. We continue to invest in road capacity expansions as our go-to strategy to alleviate congestion or drive economic growth, despite proof that this strategy does not work. As a result, cities remain locked in a Sisyphean strategy that continues to leave us stuck in traffic, even after COVID-19, with more remote work options than ever.
Across recent major bills, federal investment in highway programs has vastly outpaced investments in transit.
Instead of continuing oversized investments in the bloated federal highway program that fail to deliver results, the next transportation reauthorization bill needs to invest in the rest to build a world-class, multimodal transportation system. Here are some steps Congress and USDOT can take to get started.
1. Fix the data
We need quality data to make quality decisions. Transportation generates plenty of opportunities to collect data, from vehicular speed and throughput to how many miles of bike lane are being built. However, ensuring data quality matters much more than raw quantity of measures alone. While we have plenty of data-oriented solutions and measures to advance and plan specific transportation projects, the data underlying our system is full of holes.
Right now, it’s difficult for policymakers and advocates to determine how we are spending our money and to identify the actual effects of spending trends. Critical performance measure data tracked by the Federal Highway Administration can take years to update or be presented incomplete, missing data entirely. But even quality data is insufficient when we interpret it through the same old flawed processes that take us to the same old conclusions that lead us to the same bad outcomes.
We need better information to make better decisions at the federal, state, and local levels. Practitioners should have access to tools that effectively model and account for induced demand, land use changes, greenhouse gasses, and access to jobs and services in ways that can inform investment decisions away from strategies that have not worked in the past. Current and planned transportation investments should be reported on a more standardized basis in order for state advocates to understand where their funds are actually going.
2. Better utilize federal programs
The transformative investment levels required to provide a world class transportation system won’t be met with small, individual discretionary grant programs alone. The real workhorses of the federal transportation program—the Surface Transportation Block Grant and National Highway Performance Program—often provide a significant portion of federal funds for states to invest how they see fit, which almost always means building more roads. Spending on new road capacity is delivering diminishing returns and should be rededicated to opportunities to take public transit or walk, bike, and roll.
Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), there are many programs available to create more transportation options. However, finding and applying for these funds can be a strain on communities. Congress should consider consolidating the number of programs and expanding the size of smaller programs that provide funding access for local communities to address local safety, access, and resilience priorities. In implementing these federal programs, USDOT should streamline grant applications for smaller localities and jurisdictions while continuing to provide specialized assistance and relevant application information for lower resourced communities.
3. Fund transit operations, and use funding to boost frequency
When properly supported, transit provides immense value to communities and users from all walks of life. Unfortunately, transit has received significantly less support over the years compared to highway projects.
In order to unlock the transformative economic, climate, and equity benefits that transit can bring to a region, transit service needs to be frequent and provide access to jobs and services. We can do this by helping to fund transit operations and structuring federal grant programs to provide a pathway for transit agencies to reliably increase service and frequency to get people where they need to go.
Pairing the above with walkable, denser development around transit and a method to raise revenues that captures the value transit brings to a region could help advance investments in building out our transit systems, making them even more valuable resources.
4. Build out the passenger rail network
The IIJA is proving to be a launchpad for a passenger rail revival in the United States. There’s no doubt we’ve come a long way. However, as projects develop, there’s still much more work to be done and it takes a long time to bring a train up to top speed. If we want to build off our successes, reauthorization should ensure that we don’t stop building our rail network commitments now. Continuing our investments in national connectivity, and service is the best path forward to a strong national rail system. Learn more about how federal leaders can help advance passenger rail here.
The stakes
Congress and USDOT can play a major role in supporting a multimodal, world-class transportation system. Providing a floor for consistent investment in transit and active transportation infrastructure will be vital in ensuring that every American can reach their destinations safely, conveniently, and efficiently.
It’s Invest in the Rest Week
Click below to access more content related to our third principle for infrastructure investment, Invest in the Rest. Find all three of our principles here.
While we might have the most extensive highway infrastructure in the world, our system is delivering pitifully poor results compared to our peers when it comes to cost, efficiency, emissions, and safety. What can Congress and USDOT do to invest in the rest?
Last week, Transportation for America joined organizations and advocates nationwide in the Week Without Driving challenge. During this week, all Americans, including transportation practitioners and policymakers, are encouraged to travel without a car, allowing them to experience local barriers to walking, biking, and taking public transit firsthand.
For decades, federal highway funding and funding for all other types of transportation (public transit, opportunities to walk and bike) have been severely unbalanced. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian deaths, and traffic, the Department of Transportation must invest in more transportation alternatives.
Last week, Transportation for America joined organizations and advocates nationwide in the Week Without Driving challenge. During this week, all Americans, including transportation practitioners and policymakers, are encouraged to travel without a car, allowing them to experience local barriers to walking, biking, and taking public transit firsthand.
For decades, our policies and investments have prioritized creating transportation infrastructure that is primarily oriented around the movement of people in cars. This focus has come at the expense of all other ways to travel, and everyday people pay the price.
This is why many advocates and organizations, including Transportation for America, chose to participate in the national Week Without Driving, which challenges people to spend a full week getting around to work, the grocery store, and all other activities, without using a car.
For individuals in transit-friendly and walkable neighborhoods, the Week Without Driving challenge was hardly a challenge at all. Many went about their daily routines or had fun exploring the other travel options in their area. But for the majority of Americans, who live in neighborhoods designed for cars at the expense of the safety and mobility options of everyone else, it’s not as easy as putting down the car keys and choosing another way to get around. Not being able to drive has consequences for travel time, as well as the comfort and safety of a trip. And this is not an accident—it’s a product of years of funding and policy decisions that focused on vehicle speed, rather than the far more important measure of how well our system is getting people where they need to go.
For a third of Americans, traveling without a car isn’t a choice, it’s an everyday reality. Yet many people who regularly drive are unaware of the need for more options. For some, it is an insurmountable challenge to get from Point A to Point B without a vehicle. Hostile walking and biking infrastructure, and unreliable transit frequency and coverage are only a few of the barriers cited by participants in going car free. Poorly maintained conditions of sidewalks and incomplete networks of paths also prevent pedestrians from safely crossing busy roadways and major arterial roads.
The impact isn’t felt equally
Every traveler has had the experience of not being able to drive at some point, for a variety of reasons (including when your car has to be taken in for repairs). However, the burden is felt most by people who are unable to drive regularly, if at all, including young adults, elderly folks aging in place, people with disabilities, and those who cannot afford the exorbitant costs of having a car. Barriers to access for a car are also particularly exacerbated in rural areas and low-income communities.
Everyday travel would look vastly different if the amount of funding we dedicate to expanding roadways and highways was instead used to build out the other transportation options that have been neglected for far too long. Not only would this increase the mobility options available for communities, it would also generate environmental, health, and public safety benefits writ large. We hope this year’s Week Without Driving helped decision-makers envision the transportation network Americans need.
At T4A, we believe it’s time to invest in a complete and comprehensive transportation network that empowers people to get wherever they need to go conveniently and efficiently, regardless of the mode of transportation they choose. That’s why one of our three guiding principles for the next federal investment in transportation infrastructure is Invest in the Rest. Learn more about this principle and why it matters here.
It’s Invest in the Rest Week
Click below to access more content related to our third principle for infrastructure investment, Invest in the Rest. Find all three of our principles here.
While we might have the most extensive highway infrastructure in the world, our system is delivering pitifully poor results compared to our peers when it comes to cost, efficiency, emissions, and safety. What can Congress and USDOT do to invest in the rest?
Last week, Transportation for America joined organizations and advocates nationwide in the Week Without Driving challenge. During this week, all Americans, including transportation practitioners and policymakers, are encouraged to travel without a car, allowing them to experience local barriers to walking, biking, and taking public transit firsthand.
For decades, federal highway funding and funding for all other types of transportation (public transit, opportunities to walk and bike) have been severely unbalanced. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrian deaths, and traffic, the Department of Transportation must invest in more transportation alternatives.
It’s time for transportation investments that achieve results for all Americans. For future investments in U.S. infrastructure, Congress should follow three key principles: prioritize safety over speed, fix it first, and invest in the rest.
We’ve released our three principles for future federal investments in our nation’s infrastructure. Learn more about them at t4america.org/platform.
Federal transportation policy has very serious problems to solve. Our roads, bridges, transit, sidewalks, bikeways, and rail systems are in disrepair; congestion has increased; pedestrian fatalities and emissions are the highest in decades, and rising; and too many people lack safe, affordable, and convenient access to jobs and essential services.
For too long, Congress has thrown more funding at the problem, hoping that spending more dollars on the same thing will lead to different results. However, all this money has only continued to make our problems worse. As Congress makes decisions about limited taxpayer funds, it’s time that they invest smarter, prioritizing our dollars to create a transportation system that works for the average American.
With the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act expiring in 2026, the next surface transportation reauthorization, a significant federal investment in our nation’s infrastructure, will be top of mind for the next Congress. Based on the results of the last reauthorization (and the one before that, and the one before that), it is clear that we need a fundamental change in approach. That’s why we’re calling on Congress to update the decades-old federal transportation program to design for safety over speed, prioritize maintenance, and invest in the full transportation system, including opportunities to walk, bike, and take public transit.
Invest in the rest
For more than half a century, we’ve invested hundreds of billions of dollars into building a sophisticated highway system that attempts to connect everyone to everything everywhere—by car. We’ve completed a highway system that was once the envy of the world, but now that same system is failing to meet today’s needs. Imagine what we could achieve if we applied the same level of funding and energy into investing in more options to get people where they need to go.
It’s time for Congress to invest in the rest of our transportation system, which has been neglected for far too long, and bring the freedom of choice back to everyday Americans trying to get where they need to go as conveniently, safely, and affordably as possible.
This is because our transportation models and policies prioritize the speed of vehicles over the safety of all road users. High-speed car travel makes sense in some environments, like on interstates or limited access highways. However, when fast-moving cars encounter people walking and biking on our local roadways, crashes, injuries, and deaths become far more likely. When it comes to roads like these, we have to choose between vehicle speed and the safety of all road users—we can’t have both.
Fix it first
There is an $830 billion backlog for repairing existing U.S. highways alone. The entire federal program spends about $50 billion per year, so even if we devoted 100 percent of all federal money to maintenance for ten straight years, we’d still be unable to fully address this backlog. This does not even account for the costs of maintaining and preserving the additional roads and bridges that we continue to build.
Our congressional leaders are well aware of this deficit. In fact, when they are determining how many taxpayer dollars to devote to our nation’s infrastructure, the need for maintenance is always top-of-mind. However, when states go to spend those dollars, they almost always prioritize costly highway expansion projects over needed repairs. And despite the clear public desire to see maintenance needs addressed, there is no federal requirement that they spend these funds any other way.
We can’t continue to build more roads and bridges if we can’t take care of the ones that already exist. Our federal funding needs to be focused on achieving a state of good repair.
For decades, Congress has poured money into the same flawed system. We’ve seen the results of that strategy. It’s time to make smarter investments in our transportation system. Starting now, we will continue to engage our congressional leaders to advance these three principles—and in the year ahead, we’ll be calling on you for help.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is rolling out billions in funding for high-powered electric vehicle chargers along highways, but the main beneficiary of these funds has been gas stations—meaning we’re missing out on prime opportunities to support other local businesses. A new bill introduced to Congress last week could enable electrification funds to drive economic development opportunities in small towns.
In a public parking lot in downtown Chico, California, an EV charging station housed in an historic gas pump. (Flickr, Don Barrett)
Across the country, states have begun the rollout of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program. NEVI is designed to eliminate anxiety over EV range by supporting longer trips with an interstate-centered network of EV chargers.
Under this $5 billion federal program, states have been tasked with deploying high-powered EV fast-charging sites, eventually accommodating all Americans with public charging opportunities at least once every 50 miles along designated highways. Over 500 new high-power electric vehicle charging sites have been announced so far (with sites being announced at an accelerating pace), and the IIJA is beginning to deliver on its promise to bring unprecedented support for electric vehicles.
As we explained in our first blog on NEVI, FHWA-issued guidance requiring states to plan their NEVI charger sites within one mile of designated highway exits has strongly influenced the types of sites that receive federal funding. This leaves only a narrow band of land eligible for NEVI funding, restricting the potentially transformative impact that the $5 billion program could achieve, especially for rural communities.
Under the one-mile guidance, states’ programs have shown heavy biases towards awarding hundreds of millions in funds to gas stations and truck stops—in fact, these locations make up about 70 percent of all awards so far. While the IIJA called for NEVI to consider existing fuel retailers, the law also called for the program to prioritize small businesses.
When fully built out, the national network of NEVI-funded public chargers will extend through hundreds of miles of rural areas. While a rural town’s borders’ could stretch up to a highway, it is often the case that the core of communities, where federal investments could make the biggest impact, are close, but down a road less traveled compared to major interstates, too far away to receive federal funding under NEVI. This means that many rural towns, located slightly more than a mile from an interstate, could be missing out on federal transportation electrification funds, even if it could represent a major opportunity to support local business and enhance the traveler experience with more service options while waiting for the vehicle to charge.
Win-win-win strategies for the EV transition
Thankfully, Congress is now making an effort to seize this opportunity, with the recent introduction of Representative Trone’s RECHARGE EV Act (which stands for Revitalizing Economic Competitiveness of Highway Adjacent Areas with Reliable Green Energy for Electric Vehicles—because Congress loves acronyms). Instead of only allowing exceptions to the NEVI program’s one-mile rule for technical reasons, the bill would allow states to turn electrification into even more of a win-win-win: a boost for small-town local businesses and their customers, greater distribution of benefits to rural communities, and increased flexibility for NEVI deployment.
Small business boosts
To understand the value of local EV charging stations, keep in mind that NEVI-funded Level 3 Direct Current Fast Chargers can take between 20 minutes to an hour to recharge a depleted EV. That’s time that vehicle owners could be spending sight-seeing and popping into nearby shops.
A recent study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that EV charging stations boost spending at nearby businesses, an effect we described previously as Charger Oriented Development. According to their research, businesses with EV chargers within walking distance received thousands of dollars more revenue annually, and the effect was even greater in disadvantaged communities. Instead of gas stations, siting NEVI chargers in rural towns could provide an economic boost to small businesses, rural towns, and historically disadvantaged communities, if guided by a smart growth lens. As an added bonus, the increased access to varied amenities could enhance the traveler experience and provide opportunities to get needed items and services at one stop, potentially reducing overall miles traveled.
Equitable electric upgrades in a constrained supply chain
Beyond the Level 3 EV chargers themselves, NEVI funding helps subsidize the electric infrastructure work required to get those stations powered up and running, such as installing transformers, or wiring to chargers. A major hang-up for swift deployment of the NEVI program today (and likely in all types of future electrification programs) is a national shortage of electrical equipment and infrastructure. This shortage leads to long waitlists for key electrical components necessary to install before powering up EV charging stations.
One way to stretch these vital resources is to deploy new electric infrastructure in ways that benefit the most people in a given community. While upgrades at remote gas stations could enable charging at just one lot, installations centered on small towns could help jumpstart a community’s access to future electrification opportunities they might otherwise miss out on.
Increased flexibility and options to build towards national goals
We need both transportation electrification and more opportunities to travel outside of a car in order to achieve emissions reduction that averts the worst consequences of climate change. The RECHARGE EV Act would give states greater flexibility and discretion to pursue electrification in ways that more efficiently distribute benefits to communities. Besides adding to the national network, placing these chargers in communities can show how rural stakeholders that they, too, can participate in the electrification transition.
The RECHARGE EV Act is a small but meaningful step towards more inclusive and effective EV infrastructure that prioritizes rural small businesses and the experience of everyday travelers. While NEVI is part of our essential efforts to reduce transportation emissions through electrification, the program still has a long way to go to maximize its potential. By thinking beyond the one-mile rule, this legislation not only enhances national access to electric vehicle charging but also stimulates local economies and fosters greater access to EV charging and future electrified opportunities.
Though it’s an uphill battle, national efforts to prioritize safety over speed really can gain momentum and achieve results. The Complete Streets movement is one such example.
A street in Portland, OR features a bike path, transit, and space for people walking. (Travis Estell, Flickr)
The term Complete Streets refers to an approach to planning, designing and building streets that enables safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. While every complete street is unique depending on a community’s local context, these streets ultimately support a variety of transportation options and enhance the quality of life for residents by promoting safety, accessibility, and sustainability.
While it wasn’t always this way, an overemphasis on vehicle travel at the expense of all other modes of transportation has resulted in incomplete streets being the default approach to transportation in the U.S. It’s our hope that decision-makers at every level will change that by prioritizing safety over speed.
The early days
The term “Complete Streets” was first coined in 2003 by Barbara McCann, who now serves as the Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Safety at the Federal Highway Administration. Two years later, she helped form the National Complete Streets Coalition, now a program of Smart Growth America. This coalition has played a crucial role in advocating for Complete Streets policies and practices over the last 20 years.
One of the landmark moments in the movement’s history occurred in 2009 when the National Complete Streets Coalition released its first Complete Streets Policy Guide. This guide provided a comprehensive framework for communities to develop their own Complete Streets policies. An updated policy framework, released last year, which serves as a national model of best practices to create a policy at any level of government. Click here to see the updated framework.
Successes and ongoing challenges
The impact of Complete Streets policies can be seen in numerous cities across the United States. For example, the city of Portland, Oregon, is renowned for its successful implementation of Complete Streets principles. Portland’s emphasis on cycling infrastructure, pedestrian-friendly design, and transit options has contributed to its reputation as a model for sustainable urban transportation.
Similarly, New York City’s implementation of Complete Streets features, such as protected bike lanes and pedestrian plazas, has transformed its streetscape, making it safer and more accessible for residents and visitors alike. These examples underscore the potential of Complete Streets to create more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable urban environments.
Despite the successes, the Complete Streets movement faces several challenges. Implementing these principles often requires overcoming entrenched interests and overcoming budgetary constraints. Additionally, achieving broad public support and ensuring that all community members benefit from Complete Streets projects can be complex. The number of people hit and killed while walking continues to rise across the country, reflecting the need for decision makers at every level to prioritize safety over speed. Click here for the National Complete Streets Coalition’s reflections on the path ahead.
The Complete Streets movement reflects a growing recognition of the need for transportation systems that serve all members of society, and change is far from over. Over the past 20 years, the concept has evolved from a visionary idea to a widely accepted approach that is reshaping the way we think about and design our roadways. As cities continue to embrace Complete Streets principles, they pave the way for more equitable, sustainable, and livable communities, setting a new standard for how we envision and experience our public spaces.
Freight plays a valuable role in keeping our communities and local economies thriving, but heavy freight vehicles pose unique challenges to community roads and air quality. Fortunately, not all good things have to arrive in a diesel-powered package.
The following post was co-authored by T4A Policy Manager Corrigan Salerno and T4A Policy Intern Sam Packman.
(NYC DOT)
The size of the vehicles on our roadways can make a big impact on our travel. Larger vehicles are harder on our roads, leading to an increased need for maintenance. Large freight vehicles, often diesel-powered, produce harmful emissions that have historically hurt marginalized communities the most. And the larger a vehicle is, the more likely a crash will result in a death, particularly for people walking. However, they also serve an essential purpose: carrying the goods we need.
Fortunately, efforts to address the size and carbon-footprint of freight vehicles are already making inroads across the country.
Reducing freight emissions
Because medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are major sources of both greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollution, reducing tailpipe emissions and oil use in this sector can support improved public health outcomes and help mitigate the climate crisis.
In our work co-leading the Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE), we advocate for policymakers to engage closely with communities most impacted by freight pollution and maximize benefits to create or maintain high-quality manufacturing jobs. Multiple groups in CHARGE are leading the way to help reduce medium- and heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Among them, the Electrification Coalition leads a consortium of industry partners toward freight electrification. CALSTART’s Trucks and Non-Road Vehicle Initiative supports faster adoption of low-emission, high-efficiency trucks and heavy equipment. Last year, the Environmental Defense Fund released a report to guide municipalities on how to form and evaluate Urban Freight Partnerships, stakeholder engagement groups that shape decision-making around urban freight.
CHARGE also supports policies that reduce distances traveled by larger freight vehicles while transitioning shorter, urban freight deliveries to electric micromobility, where applicable.
What does micromobility have to do with freight?
While large freight vehicles come in handy for long trips, when they make last-mile deliveries below full capacity, they produce just as many harmful tailpipe emissions as they do at full capacity. In these instances, cleaner, smaller, and safer microfreight options can help.
From more traditional electric bikes with space for cargo to new types of wider pedal assist bikes with semi-enclosed cabins and capacious holds, the flexibility of microfreight enables deployment in a variety of contexts. These vehicles can transport smaller amounts of cargo and thanks to their smaller size, they’re able to bypass road congestion, avoid clogging up the road themselves, and reduce wear on local roads. As an added bonus, the cost to charge e-cargo bikes can beat out fueling heavy vehicles.
Modernizing and improving the efficiency of our freight vehicles can support the nation’s efforts to maintain our roadways, improve traffic safety, and reduce harmful emissions. As innovations continue to move forward, policy will play a key role in ensuring efforts to reduce the most negative impacts of freight will succeed.
Without full transparency on California’s transportation spending, the state’s transportation investments will never align with our climate goals.
This post by Transform Policy Director Zack Deutsch-Gross and T4A Policy Manager Corrigan Salerno was originally published by Next City. Click here to read the original.
With the fifth largest economy in the world, California has for decades set the tone for what is possible on climate, with other states and even countries looking to it for bold policy leadership and direction. Yet while Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to tout California as a climate leader, his transportation agency—operating with little public oversight or accountability—continues to advance harmful projects that will guarantee future increases in emissions.
Nowhere is this contradiction more apparent than in how California is spending its Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) dollars.
The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was hailed by the Biden Administration as the biggest investment in climate in U.S. history. It devoted $1.2 trillion to “rebuild America’s roads, bridges and rail, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind.” But states were given enormous latitude in choosing how to spend the hundreds of billions intended for transportation.
Both states and the federal government failed to embrace climate-forward policy to implement the infrastructure law, predictably directing funds to emissions increasing highway building. California’s current IIJA spending will result in a net increase of over 2.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses above pre-IIJA levels by 2040, according to a recent analysis of IIJA grant awards in California by Transportation for America. Despite ambitious climate legislation and impressive emissions reduction targets, California has dedicated more IIJA funds toward emissions-increasing projects than any state except Florida and Texas.
Driving this increase in emissions is the over $2 billion of federal dollars alone that California’s Department of Transportation, Caltrans, is spending on highway expansion. Building more and wider roads encourages more people to drive, undercuts public transit investments and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and one of the few sectors where emissions are still increasing annually. Yet while the state is literally on fire, Caltrans is doubling down on climate arson—a term we do not use lightly.
California’s IIJA spending begins to explain why we are off track when it comes to meeting climate goals. What about the rest of the state’s $30 billion in annual transportation spending?
Unfortunately, we don’t know. Caltrans does not collect and publicly display data in an accessible manner, and reports to the legislature are piecemeal at best. RebuildingCA.ca.gov, the public dashboard Caltrans uses to report on projects, is the best available resource to learn how transportation dollars are being spent in your community. But the website includes no information about how these projects contribute to improving safety, increasing opportunity in disadvantaged communities, or addressing climate change.
This lack of accountability allows Gov. Newsom to proclaim himself a climate leader even as his transportation agency fails to live up to his public promises. We need transparency if we are to hold state agencies to account.
Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo’s Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086, which Transform is cosponsoring with The Greenlining Institute, will change that.
AB 2086 requires Caltrans to publicly demonstrate how its annual spending on major transportation programs is advancing the vision and goals of the California Transportation Plan. It will streamline existing, fragmented transportation reporting efforts into a uniform and consistent format made publicly available online. This will ensure that the public, lawmakers, and transportation decision-makers can easily access and understand how California’s transportation investments impact their communities and align with the state’s goals.
Now more than ever, we need more than rhetoric. We can’t expect another generational infrastructure investment from the federal government, and in tight budget years to come, California needs to maximize the return on every transportation dollar it spends.
We need to rebuild public trust by demonstrating results to voters through transparent, public reporting. We need to put our money where our mouth is by prioritizing climate-friendly transportation investments. While AB 2086 won’t change transportation spending overnight, it is an essential step toward addressing the climate crisis with fundamental good governance. Without it, all we can expect is continued inaction.
It’s nearly impossible to move forward with a transition to electric vehicles without a network of chargers in place. However, though some federal funds have rolled out to the states, efforts to build out a charging network still have a long way to go.
This apartment building in Vienna, VA (Halstead Square) includes space for vehicle charging. Chargers placed near apartments can help create a more robust charging network. (Dan Reed, Flickr)
Transportation is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Take it from USDOT—any effective strategy to reduce emissions requires both a transition to electric vehicles and opportunities to travel outside of a car.
To support the shift toward more sustainable transportation, federal and state governments are funding vital infrastructure for non-gas and non-diesel options. Highways that reliably connect sustainable fuel sources are gaining a shiny new distinction: alternative fuel corridors, or AFCs.
AFCs have become a key aspect of national strategy toward reducing environmental harms. First name-dropped on Capitol Hill in 2009, state governments from California to New York have been supporting efforts toward non-gasoline or diesel fuels even before that, naming their own corridors as well as establishing tax credits and HOV lane access for electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
Federal legislation from as early as 2015 called for the designation of AFCs, allowing them to be mapped out on a national level. Alternative fuel corridors could be designated for five specific fueling types: hydrogen, propane, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and electricity. Among the alternative candidates on the list, electric vehicles have been the option of choice for everyday Americans looking to commute to work, school, and the grocery store with the occasional road trip for leisure.
While this early effort helped link individual states’ efforts to build a connected sustainable highway network, money to build infrastructure would not arrive until the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Under the IIJA, it’s up to states to deploy the majority of EV funds through the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program, and the administration to handle the $2.5 billion Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program. The Departments of Transportation and Energy jointly administer and manage these programs through the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, though the Federal Highway Administration plays the leading role.
Funding charging options
While the Biden administration has faced criticism for a sluggish EV charging station rollout, with fewer chargers deployed than hoped after 3 years, states each had to spin up individual programs for two-thirds of that funding. As states roll out their plans and start scaling deployment, we’ll begin to see progress accelerate.
In many states, NEVI sites are meeting trends in industry standardization, adopting the Tesla-led NACS guidelines for chargers while also including adaptors for CCS vehicles. The Department of Transportation has made progress in loosening and clarifying certain requirements for federal electrification programs. Under the first round of Charging and Fueling Infrastructure grants, half of the funding for EV and alternative fueling stations was initially required to be placed within 1 mile of alternative fuel corridors, a rule that helped functionally limit chargers largely to car-dependent gas stations and roadside malls.
However, the CFI Alternative Fuel Corridor program’s second round of funding expanded this radius to 5 miles, a change T4A has previously advocated for. This change comes just in time too, as applications for the current notice of funding are open until September 11, 2024. On top of that, the CFI grant can help build more than just car chargers — FHWA has clarified that some e-micromobility improvements can be added on top of CFI projects. Recently announced awardees of CFI Round 1B, like New York City, may be taking advantage of this. While CFI fills in many gaps, future programs should go all the way on supporting e-micromobility.
The gas station model won’t be enough
The EV transition alone can’t be the sole strategy toward fighting transportation emissions, and it’ll fail if we follow the same patterns as the gas-powered status quo. The basic mechanics of fueling are different, taking an average of two minutes for gas-powered cars versus the twenty required for EVs.
People stand to benefit from healthy, walkable services and amenities, but that environment is not easily found given the current infrastructure. Building charging stations in small town main streets off the highway, even if they may take slightly longer to access, could boost local economies while also providing a more engaging break from the road: walking to local parks, checking out mom-and-pop stores, or grabbing groceries from nearby markets.
Additionally, more thought must be placed into how chargers’ placements can influence driving patterns. Focusing charger construction along highways could lead to more time spent driving, leading to tire emissions and increased wear on our roadways due to the high weight of EV batteries.
Alternative fuel corridors are only as efficient as the types of vehicles that they transport: for natural gas and hydrogen options, which are more focused on long-distance freight, it makes sense for these fueling stations to be placed near industrial areas and highways. However, EVs that largely serve commuters should have charging stations placed where individuals live and work, not necessarily where people drive the longest.
While these programs are taking steps forward, we could go further to ensure that the EV transition is making the biggest benefit. Perhaps a new designation can be created for urban areas, where residents and pedestrians are forced to walk near the polluted air of crowded city streets. Alternative fueling zones, similar to the low emissions zones that limit polluting vehicles from accessing some city centers, could provide charging solutions to promote cleaner population centers. Prioritizing charging in urban offices and apartment buildings can boost charging access, making communities more energy-efficient and more convenient places to live and travel.
The bottom line
Constituents and markets—even in states deeply entrenched in America’s fossil fuel industry—have an appetite for greater choice in transportation. While the IIJA contained major funding wins for cleaner transportation options, its 2026 expiration is quickly approaching. As federal legislators plan the next transportation reauthorization’s funding for EVs, they need to remember it is not just how much funding to allocate, but what policy to enact to maximize benefits for all.
Investments and policies that support car travel at the expense of all other transportation options have helped create a culture of driving in the U.S. Investing in a variety of transportation choices, like opportunities to bike, walk, and take public transit, would improve safety and accessibility for all.
Before the car started to take off in the early 1930s, streets were for everyone. Wagons, walkers, bikers, horses, they all utilized the street to get to daily activities and destinations. Pre-Industrial Revolution Americans would walk between 10,000 and 18,000 steps per day, and high rates of walking and biking to work or school continued throughout the late 60s. Because the street was so widely used by many different forms of transport, it functioned as a public space, a place where children could play as much as cyclists could bike to the store.
NYC Parks Photo Archive
When cars began rising in popularity in the 1920s, they entered a space not designed for them, posing a danger to other travelers. The public grew alarmed at rising death tolls and vehicle crashes, calling for reduced vehicle speeds and more protections from the car. Automakers, dealers, and enthusiasts flipped their narrative, advocating for legislation and funding campaigns that sought to regulate and restrict where people could walk and bike.
The latter campaign succeeded, but it didn’t make our streets safer. Instead, streets ultimately became a place where quick, convenient car travel is often prioritized over the safety and comfort of all other road users. In 2022, the number of people hit and killed while walking reached a 40-year high.
The illusion of choice
Post-WWII in the United States was a time of world-building, of focusing on creating a brighter future for the country in the aftermath of destruction. The infrastructure that came along with this shift made suburban lifestyles the ideal, and the car a symbol of freedom. A combination of economic incentives and a deprioritization of dense, mixed-use development led to sprawling cities with destinations spread far apart, connected by high-speed roadways.
Today, Americans are driving more for the same basic tasks. Research from Transportation for America and Third Way found that households in both rural and urban areas are driving significantly farther per trip as of 2017 than they were in 2001 to accomplish their commutes and daily tasks. Often, driving is the only convenient, safe, and reliable transportation option available, requiring households to shoulder the cost of a vehicle in order to access their daily needs. When people can’t afford regular access to a vehicle, when their car breaks down, or when they otherwise don’t have the ability to drive, they must navigate a transportation system that wasn’t built for them.
Decisions made in the past have left our streets incomplete, prioritizing one way of travel over a wealth of other options. Complete Streets are streets that are safe for all users and that connect community members to the resources they need. This blog is the first installation of a four-part series on the Complete Streets movement. Keep an eye out for our next blog, where we’ll dissect the origins of the Complete Streets movement and what it aims to achieve.
The following post was written by Mehr Mukhtar and London Weier.
Recent record-breaking temperatures demonstrate that we can no longer rely on old design approaches to meet the needs of our communities. Transportation infrastructure is no exception. Extreme heat can cause road surfaces to buckle and rail tracks to warp, leading to significant travel disruptions and safety concerns for commuters.
Sweltering heat has pushed transportation infrastructure, from roadways to railroads, to the brink, potentially leaving thousands of travelers stranded in the aftermath. Extreme heat has already caused major damage and disruptions, from planes being unable to take off in Phoenix to pavement buckling in Minnesota. Amtrak, too, recently witnessed service disruptions across the Northeast Corridor, and WMATA announced widespread delays in service. Asphalt and metal rails can expand and buckle under high temperatures, creating potentially unsafe travel circumstances. This results in delays caused by the need to reduce speed levels of train cars in the heat, brought about by the need to reduce speed levels of train cars in the heat, impacting travel plans for commuters. Extreme heat and other climate change induced weather events, such as rising sea levels, are poised to drastically increase the costs of maintaining, repairing, and replacing transportation infrastructure—at a time when the nation is already behind on roadway maintenance and repair.
Transportation infrastructure can also exacerbate the effects of extreme heat on our communities. The urban heat island effect, which occurs in urbanized areas, is partly caused by the large amounts of heat-absorbing materials found in buildings and roads. The impacts can make these heat events drastically more extreme, with pavement reaching temperatures of 160° F when the outdoor temperature breaches 100° F.
Community impacts
The impact of heat waves is not limited only to infrastructure. During the heatwaves this past June, over 30 million people were subjected to extreme heat advisories and their deadly effects as treacherously hot conditions persisted across the country. People walking, biking, or utilizing public transit are especially vulnerable to the health risks associated with extreme heat.
Imagine a bus user, navigating their typical commute on a record hot day where temperatures are breaking 100° F. The five-minute walk to the bus stop in the sweltering heat causes sweat droplets to form as soon as they leave their home. The sunlight bounces off surrounding buildings and structures, creating an almost blinding light, and fatigue sets in immediately. These conditions, exacerbated by the delay of a bus, or non-shaded shelters, can spiral into emergencies, such as heat exhaustion or heat stroke.
Often referred to as the ‘silent killer,’ extreme heat has profound health risks due to its effect on the body’s ability to regulate internal temperature. Health impacts of extreme heat disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, as emphasized in a recent video released by Smart Growth America on the disparate burden of extreme heat experienced by communities in Atlanta. Low-income neighbors and communities of color more often lack trees, shade, and natural landscapes that can reduce the urban heat island effect. For some, a hot day means driving instead of taking transit, but for others, that option is nonexistent, and they are forced to endure the high temperatures out of necessity. Communities can use tools, such as the CDC’s Health and Heat Tracker, to determine if they are more vulnerable to extreme heat and develop their own heat preparedness plans (advice for decision makers on how to develop a heat preparedness plan can be found here).
At a recent congressional briefing on extreme heat resilience for community well-being co-hosted by the American Public Health Association and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, experts brought these impacts to the attention of federal legislators. At the core of Markey’s opening statement was the sentiment that “prevention is preferable to cure,” highlighting the importance of both responding to climate change-induced warming and reducing carbon emissions in order to avoid exacerbating climate conditions. It is clear that we will continue to contend with increased and more intense heatwaves in the future, requiring governments, community leaders and planners, and residents to urgently develop a vision for adapting to, and preparing for, a changing environment.
Resilience in the face of extreme heat
The impacts of extreme heat can threaten urban infrastructure that was not built to withstand such extreme weather events. Just as we created these conditions, we also have the opportunity to create environments that protect communities from the dangers of climate change and extreme heat.
With transportation policies and investments encouraging highways and sprawling development, communities have to drive further away to access the jobs and services they need to get to, causing more emissions to be generated. In combating extreme heat, a necessary strategy is measuring and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the transportation sector is one way to help combat the impacts of extreme heat. With transportation policies and investments encouraging highways and sprawling development, communities have to drive further away to access the jobs and services they need to get to, causing more emissions to be generated. Tackling car-oriented design can play a significant role in not only reducing emissions but also mitigating the negative outcomes associated with extreme heat.
Other ways that we can address extreme heat in urbanized areas are heat mitigation and heat management. Heat mitigation seeks to reduce heat in our cities by changing the design of built environments. These initiatives might include incorporating more tree shade and native vegetation or using different building materials like more permeable and reflective pavements.
Heat management protects those in our communities when extreme heat can not be avoided. Management strategies could include improving bus shelters, establishing cooling centers, and creating heat preparedness plans. Approaching heat management with smart growth policies—like prioritizing location-efficiency, improving conventional zoning and land-use regulations, and adapting existing infrastructure—can drastically enhance effective response capabilities.
Additionally, our federal government should direct current and future investments toward building more resilient infrastructure. When government agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, set standards for materials used in new builds to be greener and better able to withstand high temperatures, they will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to build a future that is sustainable and livable for all of the nation’s residents.
Solutions to the extreme heat crisis require bipartisan support to ensure that protections are enshrined in legislation and our built environments’ standards. Urbanized areas need to improve their resilience to extreme heat, especially our transportation system, to help ensure residents can safely travel to where they need to go, regardless of the temperature.
City councilmembers in Mobile, Alabama have removed a barrier to passenger rail’s return in the Coastal South.
Today, the City Council of Mobile, Alabama voted to advance the long-awaited return of passenger rail on the Gulf Coast by approving a long-term lease and funding agreements with Amtrak and the Alabama Port Authority.
“This is a victory not only for Mobile but for every city and small town served by this route,” said John Robert Smith, Chair of Transportation for America. “I applaud the City of Mobile for removing the final roadblock to the return of passenger rail service along the Gulf Coast. This victory will improve economic mobility, connect communities across the Deep South, and set an example for the expansion of passenger rail across the country.”
“Long seen as a bellwether, the return of service to the Gulf Coast has revealed what’s possible, building momentum for a national passenger rail network,” continued Smith.
“Finally, this would not be possible without the instrumental support and leadership of our partners from the Southern Rail Commission; the Surface Transportation Board, which secured a historic settlement agreement among CSX, Norfolk Southern, Amtrak, and the Port; and the Federal Railroad Administration, which not only supported the CRISI grant but provided strong support before the STB. Finally, we would be remiss without thanking Senator Roger Wicker, who has been a tireless champion of passenger rail along the Gulf Coast from the beginning.”
Operating funding for this route, which will span from New Orleans, LA to Mobile, AL was sent off course when Alabama Governor Kay Ivey opposed funding, requiring the City of Mobile to come up with the funds for this vital service. Through an agreement between the Alabama Port Authority, the State of Alabama, and the City Council, roughly $3 million in funding has now been promised to Amtrak for the next three years, marking essential progress for the return of service. These funds build upon a $178.4 million grant previously awarded by the Federal Railroad Administration.
This change would not be possible without strong partnerships, and collaboration will continue to be essential as Amtrak begins track upgrades and infrastructure improvements to pave the way for the return of service, which we hope to see begin as soon as possible.
Learn more about the history of passenger rail and the return of service to the Gulf Coast In recognition of recent progress for passenger service in the Coastal South, we published a four-part series exploring how unified regional and national approaches, supported by local advocacy and sound policy, can help create a successful passenger rail network.
Passenger rail efforts in the Gulf Coast demonstrated tireless commitment to federal advocacy, funding development, and ultimately service implementation. But if our nation’s leaders are truly interested in advancing a national network, they can take action now to support future efforts.
In recognition of recent progress for passenger service in the Coastal South, we’re releasing a four-part series exploring how unified regional and national approaches, supported by local advocacy and sound policy, can help create a successful passenger rail network. This is part four of the series, written by Mehr Mukhtar and London Weier. Read part one, part two, and part three.
In our last three blogs, we outlined the challenges and opportunities in the maintenance and expansion of passenger rail service in the country, with an emphasis on the story of recent achievements in the Gulf Coast. It’s clear that the 2021 federal infrastructure law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA) unlocked a treasure trove of resources for advancing passenger rail in the United States, yet three years later, there’s still a great deal of progress to be made. This blog shares priorities for ensuring that we are making the most of this unlocked promise and possibility by creating a national vision for passenger rail.
National connectivity
Amtrak should continue to maintain and expand the connectivity and geographic coverage of the national network, as stipulated in the language of the IIJA. To ensure that the entire nation is served, both urban and rural, and judged by performance standards appropriate to the region served and type of service provided, the Northeast Corridor should not be treated as a separate entity to the entire national network.
Establish dedicated funding
Unlike public transit, aviation, and highways, passenger rail does not receive a dedicated source of revenue to build out its service. Instead, Amtrak relies on annual appropriations, which occur once each fiscal year. Our passenger rail network is living paycheck to paycheck, and that’s no way to invest in a long-term vision. In order to expand our network to its full potential, passenger rail needs to be treated as a service that has a future. Congress should set up a dedicated source of revenue for the development of passenger rail.
Encourage innovation
There are many private providers that, if given the opportunity, could lend their services and expertise to developing a robust passenger rail network. However, because Amtrak is the only passenger rail provider that can utilize the nation’s existing network of freight rail lines, it’s currently the only viable option to expand passenger rail across the country.
Extending the right-of-access to at least three providers would help spur innovation in passenger rail expansion, introducing new approaches, ideas, and competition. In addition, allowing freight or private providers to be eligible for federal funding for long distance service could further propel expansion.
Representation on the Amtrak Board of Directors
Amtrak’s existing board is not reflective of the geographic diversity of the communities across the nation that it serves or the types of service provided. An unrepresentative board prevents Amtrak from developing and advocating for strategic priorities that represent the interests of all of Amtrak’s users. The guidance laid out in the IIJA for representation on Amtrak’s board should be implemented and enforced.
Standardize the rail system
Right now, rail providers aren’t required to standardize their equipment, which means that any passenger rail network we create may require different equipment depending on the track design or power supply networks. This could lead to a disjointed rail network down the line, where only some trains are able to operate on certain tracks.
To ensure a streamlined customer experience and to make the most of taxpayer investments, equipment for conventional speed and high-speed rail should be standardized, as well as right-of-way infrastructure to ensure interoperability of the national system.
An upcoming opportunity
The 2021 infrastructure law is set to expire in 2026. At that point, our nation’s leaders will need to pass a new law, called the surface transportation reauthorization, to further enhance our nation’s transportation system. Reauthorization will present a monumental opportunity to reassert a consolidated vision for national passenger service. But we should be clear: there’s no need to wait. To make the most of the 2021 infrastructure law’s investments, our leaders can and should begin making progress on the priorities listed above right now.
In testimony to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Beth Osborne explained how our current approach to transportation is failing average Americans and what steps need to be taken to build a system that responds to taxpayer needs.
Beth Osborne addresses the House T&I Committee on July 24, 2024.
Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne was invited to speak before the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee today during a hearing on the United States Department of Transportation’s regulatory and administrative agenda. In her testimony, she highlighted that current federal investments are failing to achieve their intended results, arguing for stronger accountability for the American taxpayer.
“The point is that federal spending and what we get for it is not regulated nor is there much oversight. There is very little transparency into where funding is allocated and there is rarely a report on whether a project delivered any of the benefits that were promised.”
—Beth Osborne
She also noted that the few regulations that are in place are slowing innovation, particularly for safe streets. Smart Growth America’s Dangerous by Design report found that pedestrian fatalities reached a 40-year high in 2022, concluding that designing for safety over speed would help save thousands of lives. However, street design engineers at the state and local level regularly cite federal rules and standards as the reason they cannot narrow lane widths, add color in the roadway, or slow traffic speeds.
Every five to seven years, our nation’s leaders funnel more taxpayer dollars into our transportation system, hoping that this time more money for the same old approach will lead to different results. Each and every time, they have been proven wrong. As transportation emissions rise and deaths on our roadways increase, accountability to the American people is long overdue.
Advancing equitable transit-oriented development requires all hands at the community level, but leadership at the state and federal level can also help propel change.
Public transportation and housing work in tandem. People want to live in walkable areas that are close to frequent transit stations to move around quickly. Equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) helps meet this desire by maximizing the amount of residential, business and leisure spaces within walking distance of public transportation.
Locating public transit near everyday destinations promotes ridership and makes it easier for people to travel without needing a private vehicle. It’s a vital component to establishing well-connected communities and promoting economic growth. However, it’s difficult to build any form of transit within one mile of residential spaces.
On June 26th, 2024 the Future of Transportation Caucus hosted a congressional briefing focused on equitable transit-oriented development. Here are a few of the barriers to ETOD that came up during the briefing.
Local legislation can restrict development
Principal Research Associate from the Urban Institute, Yonah Freemark explained during the briefing that many localities have land use policies that restrict dense and mixed use buildings near transit.
Additionally, zoning laws in many cities have been stagnant in updating their codes. Planning Manager for the City of Columbus, Alex Saursmith, highlighted this point with his own city, where the zoning code has not been updated in 70 years. Currently, only 6,000 housing units can be constructed every 10 years, despite Columbus being one of the fastest growing cities in the country.
ETOD is also more financially effective than supporting continued road-building by prioritizing development density. It better maintains and maximizes the benefits of existing infrastructure. As LOCUS Chair Alecia Hill explained, state legislators should have an economic financial incentive to promote equitable transit-oriented development. When a lack of housing supply coupled with a lack of transportation options drives up household costs, residents are the ones who pay the price.
Transportation costs are the second largest expense category, behind housing, for most households. When households are already severely economically constrained, the costs of housing and transportation can be particularly difficult to meet. Renters that are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened can spend greater than 30 or 50 percent, respectively, of their gross income on housing costs, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics found that households with income lower than $25,000 who own at least one vehicle spent 38 percent of their after-tax income on transportation in 2022.
Community voices are key
Community input is a foundational factor to rally support for more housing and transit. It’s important for citizens to have an opportunity to provide input early and see how their concerns will be addressed.
Sometimes, residents oppose new housing development for a variety of reasons, ranging from a fear of losing a community’s identity to a fear of increased traffic or reduced property values. Practitioners and legislators should listen and respond to these concerns. For example, they could point to research like this study from Livable Cities Lab which showed that some property values increased when more housing was introduced. In addition, legislators working to adopt new zoning regulations would be wise to find their local allies and enlist their help in developing community support. Explaining how new housing development relates to the community’s values and goals can further strengthen the case for change.
As Saursmith explained during the briefing, areas that have seen high population growth are a major driving force to zoning reform, especially when those areas are economically disadvantaged. These places are in desperate need of more housing, especially mixed-use residentials within walking distance to transit. He notes that with noticeable population growth, innate political pressure grows to update local amendments that have become obsolete. Generally, political pressure on leaders is the start to policy-making change.
Labor perspectives are also vital to promoting ETOD, especially within the realm of unions. Executive Director of Good Jobs First, Greg LeRoy, explained that some unions have begun to embrace urban density, arguing that promoting density is not only beneficial for the environment, public health, and economic growth, but also innately pro-union and pro-jobs.
More equitable, better connected communities
Updating zoning laws requires having local city council members and state leaders actively and loudly call for reform. Calling local representatives and campaigning for leadership that will advocate for updated zoning laws is part of the solution to allow for more housing. The other side of the issue to address focuses on the grassroots level. Tackling discourse in online spaces, attending city council meetings in promotion of more housing near transit, or canvassing on referendums are all opportunities to promote ETOD.
Even federal leaders like members in the Future of Transportation Caucus make waves to address housing and transit, helping to propel the conversation forward. In 2020, Representative Jesús Chuy García introduced a bill to promote housing near transit and establish an office under DOT specifically for ETOD. These avenues all provide a chance to showcase the numerous economic, public health, and environmental benefits of constructing housing near transit.
On May 9, the chairman of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Representative Sam Graves, and the chairman of the Highways and Transit Subcommittee, Representative Rick Crawford highlighted recent increases in crime reports according to FTA-tracked data. The period of time evaluated (2020-2022) represents some of the worst times for transit as agencies struggled to deliver service, ridership fell, and travel behavior changed across the country.
Transit safety is foundational to encouraging communities to utilize this public resource and enjoy its numerous benefits, including economic, environmental, and public health benefits. It is essential that federal investments protect taxpayers as they travel. Unfortunately, Representatives Graves and Crawford failed to take note of the need for safety enhancements for all modes of transportation, including modes that are far more dangerous than taking the bus.
From 2020-2022, during that same period highlighted by Graves and Crawford, fatalities on our roadways exploded. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, projected roadway fatalities increased from 39,007 to 42,795. According to Smart Growth America’s Dangerous by Design report, the number of people hit and killed while walking grew to 7,522 in 2022, marking a 40-year high.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, passenger car occupants are the primary victims in highway fatalities, totaling more than 10,000 deaths each year since 2010. By contrast, non-rail public transit occupants (like bus riders) accounted for less than 100 highway fatalities each year. Other types of public transit, like subways, accounted for less than 300 transportation-related fatalities each year. (To fully understand these numbers, it’s important to note that highway fatalities, including non-rail public transit, counted only direct fatalities like deaths that occur due to a collision. Other types of public transit included incident-related fatalities, and so these deaths are likely overstated in comparison.)
Whether we’re driving, biking, walking, or taking public transit, we should be able to travel safely. But when representatives like Crawford derail the conversation to “shine a light” on transit security alone, it unnecessarily discourages and scares individuals from riding public transportation, despite it being statistically safer than operating a private vehicle.
Increased operations funding can help support transit agencies’ efforts to improve safety. Hiring transit ambassadors and having security officers on board are just two interventions that would support crime mitigation efforts. Collaborating with local services to support housing and mental health could help address criminal activity from multiple angles.
We’re glad federal representatives are having conversations about transportation safety, and we hope to see these conversations translate into increased funding for transit operations and security. But to truly address dangerous travel conditions, we need to consider the full picture. We hope to see additional efforts to address the top contributor to transportation-related fatalities in the US: private vehicles on high-speed roads.
