News and Blog - Page 45 of 78 - Transportation For America

Ten things to know about USDOT’s new proposal for measuring traffic congestion

For the first time, USDOT has released new requirements for how states and metro areas will have to measure traffic congestion. While the new rule marks a continued, necessary shift to assessing what our federal transportation dollars actually accomplish, this proposal as introduced doubles down on outdated measures of congestion that will push local communities to spend billions of dollars in vain attempts to build their way out of it.

UPDATE: The comment period is open. Click here to sign and send a letter that we (along with Smart Growth America) will deliver in person to USDOT before the comment period closes.

Curious to learn more about this rule? Join us for an online discussion next Wednesday, April 27th from 1-2 p.m. EST.

For two years, USDOT has been working to establish a new system of performance measures to help govern how federal dollars are spent and hold states and metro areas accountable for making progress on important goals. This proposal for congestion (and several other measures focused on “system performance”) is the last of three sets of new Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) rules that will be finalized in early 2017.

Though this represents an incredibly important and necessary shift toward measuring what our transportation spending actually accomplishes, using the wrong measure for congestion will help advance projects that divide communities, cut people off from opportunity, and cost billions of dollars (we don’t have) in the name of solving “congestion” by trying in vain to keep traffic moving.

As we laid out in our post on congestion last week, how we measure congestion matters.

There’s a direct connection between how we decide to measure it and how we choose to address it. If we focus, as this rule does, on keeping traffic moving at a high rate of speed at all times of day on all types of roads and streets, then the result is easy to predict: our solutions will prioritize the investments that make that possible, regardless of cost vs. benefits or the potential impacts on the communities those roads pass through.

Here are ten things you need to know about this new rule from USDOT and what you can do about it

#1 The rule undermines Secretary Foxx’s unprecedented effort to connect communities and use transportation to give people greater opportunities

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx recently launched a campaign based on the stunning admission that federal policy had long incentivized poorly designed highways that isolated communities and cut people off from jobs and opportunities.

Springing out of powerful personal examples he saw firsthand growing up in Charlotte when new freeways were built “to carry people through my neighborhood, but never to my neighborhood,” he expressed his firm commitment to ensuring that our transportation investments connect more people to opportunity and knit communities together — rather than divide them.

crestdale drive charlotte interstates congestion rule

Where the streets around Secretary Foxx’s childhood neighborhood dead-end into Interstates 77 and 85 in Charlotte, NC

It’s an inspiring effort, but as he said, “These principles sound very easy, but they’re really hard and they’re also very necessary if we’re going to make transportation work for everybody.” This rule produced by FHWA illustrates the uphill battle against the institutional inertia for the old way of doing things.

This proposal also undercuts the Secretary’s ongoing Mayors’ Challenge for Safer People and Safer Streets intended to “help communities create safer, better connected bicycling and walking networks,” explicit requirements from Congress to design streets safe for all users, and the nearly 900 communities that have passed complete streets policies to do the same.

“We’re trying to be more attuned, but it’s not a situation where the federal government is solely in control. We can’t tell a state what project to do. They have to make those determinations,” Sec. Foxx noted.

Indeed, states and metro areas will still be making the bulk of the decisions. Yet through this rule and other guidance, USDOT can absolutely usher in a new paradigm by steering states and metro areas to a more holistic approach for measuring traffic congestion that counts all people in a community by counting all modes of transportation. And we will need your help to hold USDOT’s feet to the fire to make this change happen.

#2 Focusing on delay is simply the wrong measure for addressing congestion

USDOT plans to measure vehicle speed and delay seven different ways, while ignoring people carpooling, taking transit, walking & biking or skipping the trip entirely.

A host of people and groups from all across the map, including T4America, have already explained in detail how a singular focus on delay for drivers paints an incredibly one-dimensional picture of congestion. Focusing on average delay by simply measuring the difference between rush hour speeds compared to free-flow 3 a.m. traffic fails to count everyone else commuting by other modes, rewards places with fast travel speeds at the expense of places with shorter commutes and less time spent behind the wheel overall, and completely ignores how many people are actually moving through the corridor.

This measure treats a corridor filled with buses or carpoolers the same as a corridor filled with single-occupancy vehicles. It ignores millions of people who opt out of congestion entirely by taking transit, telecommuting, walking or biking, and even penalizes places where people get to take shorter trips. While USDOT’s proposal to measure delay per capita at least begins to recognize that not everyone in a region is stuck in traffic on the highway, it still fails to measure how many people are moving through a corridor.

Shouldn’t the actual impact on real people be the core principle of anything we measure? Any traffic congestion measure should lead us to solutions that increase access to opportunity for everyone — regardless of how they travel each day.

#3 You can’t manage what you don’t measure

In the pointed words of a USDOT official earlier this week, “you can’t manage what you don’t measure.” The really staggering thing is that FHWA knows they’re missing the boat on measuring other crucial things that paint a more accurate picture of delay. From their own words in the 425-page rule:

As with delay metrics, FHWA acknowledges that travel time indices do not capture system attributes in terms of shorter trips or better access to destinations and mode options, which may occur at the expense of greater delay.

True. So let’s find a better way than focusing narrowly on delay.

#4 USDOT should stick with reliability and dump delay

One of the few positives is that (in one of the measures), USDOT recognizes that predictability is incredibly important. The rule includes a people-centric metric of “reliability” — whether a trip on a corridor takes the same amount of time from one day to the next. While completely eliminating rush hour congestion isn’t either possible or affordable, what many travelers are looking for is the basic assurance that their morning commute will take the same amount of time each day, allowing them to plan their trips with predictability.

But reliability for whom? Unfortunately, this rule only considers the reliability of those traveling by car, and will ignore whether or not your transit trip is hit or miss.

Though one of the other measures is labeled “reliability,” it’s just another measure of delay in sheep’s clothing: It defines “reliability” as trips taking the same amount of time at any time of the day – middle of the night or rush hour — an incredibly unlikely scenario.

#5 When it comes to congestion, this treats highways the same as main streets — and could do real harm to our most economically vibrant places

Take a look at these two sets of streets from Nashville and Charlotte. First: US 41/Clarksville Pike in northern Nashville, and then Broadway in downtown Nashville.

US 41 Nashville congestion Nashville Broadway NHS congestion

And Brookshire Blvd/NC-16 headed south into Charlotte, and Tryon Street near downtown

NC 16 Charlotte congestion Charlotte Tryon Street NHS congestion

Are the needs of all of these streets the same? Do they all need to accomplish the same thing? Should we expect them to function the same way?

Partially because of a decision made all the way back in 2012 in MAP-21 to expand what’s known as the National Highway System to include nearly every four-lane (or larger) road — regardless of what kind of traffic it carries or where it passes through, this measure proposes to measure congestion roughly the same way on all of them.

Whether in a rural small town or a big city, the needs of our country’s main streets are radically different from the highways and interstates designed to connect disparate places. For a main street to function well, it has to serve everyone who needs to use it.

On a main street, that which looks like “vehicle delay” to a traffic engineer looks like economic activity and success to a local merchant or mayor on a main street.

#6 USDOT ignores the innovative things other states and metro areas are already doing

California has already moved to scrap level of service (LOS) as an evaluation criteria for transportation projects, one that has typically resulted in the same outcomes as this narrow congestion rule. As Angie Schmitt wrote in Streetsblog back in January:

Instead of assessing how a building or road project will affect traffic delay, California will measure how much traffic it generates, period. Car trips, not car delays, will be the thing to avoid. This is likely to have the opposite effect of LOS, leading to more efficient use of land and transportation infrastructure.

At the same time that USDOT is proposing to double down on 1960’s measures for traffic congestion, other metro areas across the country are setting ambitious new goals and accompanying performance measures for improving health, improving access to jobs for more people or expanding transit to connect more people to opportunity.

#7 We can’t wait to develop better measures until we have the “perfect” data

Throughout the rule’s 425 pages, USDOT continues to perpetuate the myth that they lack adequate data to measure other modes of transportation, ignoring sources like (their own!) National Transit Database, the U.S. Census American Community Survey, and cell phone network data among others. USDOT invested millions of taxpayer dollars after the passage of MAP-21 to procure the data necessary to develop these vehicle-only measures. If USDOT is spending our money to collect data then they must find ways to acquire the data needed to better measure the entire system and all of its users.

#8 It puts containers above commuters

By defining congestion on interstates as speeds below 35 mph for commuters but below just 50 mph for freight trucks, this rule strangely prioritizes the needs of freight movement at the expense of people. While the movement of freight is indeed incredibly important, it should be on a level playing field with the people picking up the majority of the tab for the system’s maintenance. (To say nothing of the difficulty of actually implementing different standards for various types of vehicles on the same roadway.)

This rule also sets an impossible standard for freight movement in urban settings. Freight bottlenecks obviously occur far more often in urban areas where demand is far greater. Does anyone think that it’s feasible or affordable to spend enough or build enough capacity so that trucks can travel at 50 mph through the middle of major cities during rush hour?

#9 It undercuts the goal of protecting and enhancing the environment

This rule does include more than just measures for traffic congestion, including a requirement to measure mobile source emissions (i.e. pollution from vehicles). Yet states and metro areas would only have to measure the impact of the few projects funded by the relatively tiny Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program, which is akin to not being required to reduce highway deaths on a road because that road was built with highway dollars instead of safety improvement dollars.

Though the rule makes a first-ever move to include language on measuring the contribution of the potential emissions impacts of transportation, it stops far short of actually including any requirements with teeth. As Joe Cortright wrote earlier this week:

Despite some hopes that the White House and environmentalists had prevailed on the USDOT to tackle transportation’s contribution to climate change as part of these performance measures, there’s nothing with any teeth here. Instead—in a 425 page proposed rule—there are just six pages (p. 101-106) addressing greenhouse gas emissions that read like a bad book report and a “dog-ate-my-homework” excuse for doing nothing now. Instead, DOT offers up a broad set of questions asking others for advice on how they might do something, in some future rulemaking, to address climate change.

#10 We still have a chance to improve this rule — but we’ll need your help to do it

The comment period for this rule isn’t open yet — it will open on Friday, April 22 and run for at least 90 days. Though USDOT has gone in the wrong direction on many of these measures, we know from our past experience on similar rules that they are absolutely listening for suggestions for improving this. They’re eager to hear how it can be improved.

There are three things you can do in the next week to help.

Join the public webinars that USDOT is planning on the rule. Ask direct questions about these shortcomings and urge them to improve the measure. (Link corrected)
Join T4America for an online discussion next Wednesday, April 27th from 1-2 p.m. EST. We’ll have our experts explaining the rule, why it matters, and how we’ll be focused on improving it.
Send an official comment into USDOT. We’ll be back here on the blog and in your email inboxes in the coming days to start generating thousands of public comments once it’s open. We need to overwhelm USDOT with smart comments from across the country about how this measure falls short, why we must do better, and what more effective measures would look like.

Not on our email list already? Sign up here.

Senate Appropriators Prepare for FY2017 THUD Introduction

On Friday, April 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee announced they will introduce and mark up the annual FY2017 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (T-HUD) the week of April 18. This announcement comes on the heels of the release of top-line funding levels for all 12 annual appropriation bills, including T-HUD.

The Senate FY2017 funding allocations does not include any of the more than $50 billion in new mandatory spending proposed in the President’s FY2017 budget request. However, it remains consistent with the amounts approved in the 2015 Balanced Budget Act.

The Senate allocations total $1.07 trillion in base funding and $74 billion in funding for Overseas Contingency Operations. Under the subcommittee breakdown of these totals, the T-HUD funding allocation is $56.474 billion. This represents an $826 million decrease compared to current FY2016 funding at $57.3 billion. (See allocations for all subcommittees here). Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), chair of the T-HUD subcommittee, has indicated that the housing side of the T-HUD bill should include “some offsetting receipts that help us from the federal mortgage insurance programs” and thinks this will provide for solid funding levels.

During the release of the funding allocations on Thursday, April 14, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), ranking member of the full committee, thanked the committee for the expeditious way that appropriations are moving forward and remarked that the allocations were ‘fair but snug’. She also expressed hope that all of the 12 appropriations bills would continue to move forward in a timely manner and in line with three principles: (1) adhering to the 2015 Balanced Budget Act, (2) ensuring parity between defense and non-defense spending, and (3) without any poison pill riders. There were a few comments that the budget process needs improvement, but overall the allocations were agreed to 29-1 with the dissenting vote made by Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS).

The House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) announced on April 13, 2016 that House movement on appropriations will be slow due to House Republican leaders who continue to disagree over the FY2017 budget. Representative Rogers noted that the House Appropriations Committee may still produce funding bills totaling $1.07 trillion, but approval of funding allocations will be done one by one for each bill as they advance out of subcommittees. However, no House spending FY2017 bills will move to the floor without a budget or a waiver.

Breaking news: USDOT releases draft rule for measuring congestion

A new federal proposal governing how states and metro areas will be required to measure congestion was just released early today. Our brief analysis finds that though there’s potential for improvement with how the rule is worded, it would still push local communities to waste time and money attempting to build their way out of congestion by using a measure of traffic congestion that’s narrow, limited and woefully out of date.

As we alluded to last week, thanks to new requirements in the 2012 transportation law (MAP-21), USDOT was preparing to release the last batch of new performance measures to help ensure federal dollars are spent to make progress on important, measurable goals. Though these new directions on measuring congestion (along with other important measures) won’t be officially released and open for comment until this Friday, this document posted by FHWA today is likely to be the final proposal for new performance measures.

We’re reading through the full 425-page rule now, and will have much more here on the blog soon (and in your email inboxes), including a way for you to send official comments to USDOT urging them to do better.

Do you want to be notified with the latest news on this front? Sign up for email from T4America today.

In the meantime, if you missed our post last week explaining why it’s important how we choose to measure congestion, catch up with that here.

Will pending federal transportation rule double down on outdated view of congestion?

Will pending federal transportation rule double down on outdated view of congestion?

USDOT is on the cusp of releasing crucial directions for how states and metro areas will have to measure traffic congestion. The new rule could push local communities to try in vain to build their way out of congestion, or mark a shift toward smarter approaches like shortening trip times, rewarding communities that provide more options or better accounting for other travel modes and telecommuting.

Updated: The rule is out — read our more detailed post on ten things you should know about it, and take action by sending a letter to USDOT.

Thanks to new requirements in the 2012 transportation law (MAP-21), USDOT is working to establish a new system of performance measures to help govern how federal dollars are spent and hold states and metro areas accountable for making progress on important goals. For two years, USDOT has been slowly developing, releasing and then refining new metrics for safety and state of good repair for highways and bridges. And any day now, they’re expected to release the final highway rule that will cover traffic congestion, air emissions, freight movement and system performance.

How we measure traffic congestion matters

While all of those specific metrics are important, how USDOT instructs states and metro areas to measure congestion will have huge impacts on communities of all sizes. Why? Because there’s a direct connection between how we decide to measure congestion and the resulting strategies for addressing it. And we need a measure that rewards solutions like aggressively investing in additional travel options, eliminating trips, reducing trip length, creating more places to live close to jobs or more effectively managing travel demand.

One of the most commonly used methods for measuring congestion today (and how proposed transportation projects would improve it or make it worse) is incredibly narrow and generates major criticism: roadway delay.

Every year, the Texas Transportation Institute releases their annual Travel Time Index congestion report that generates tons of news coverage across the country. Our piece from last year explained the limitations of comparing average rush-hour speeds to empty roads in the middle of the night, as TTI uses those middle-of-the-night speeds as their baselines for comparison. And then as a direct result of how congestion gets measured, many agencies attempt, at enormous price tags, to build enough road capacity to keep traffic moving at free-flow speeds during rush hour, usually bringing limited benefits (a few seconds of savings per commuter) at enormous costs.

Roadway delay, typified by TTI, also rewards places with long average commutes that happen at a high rate of speed, dinging places where people spend less time commuting or commuting shorter distances — just because they travel at slower speeds compared to that baseline of average travel speeds at the middle of the night.

Another major shortcoming is that roadway delay focuses only on drivers — not commuters as a whole, ignoring the millions of people opting out of congestion entirely by using various other options like transit, walking or biking or skipping the trip by telecommuting. Under a roadway delay measure, if a city has made investments like these that allow a large share of its commuters to skip roadway congestion entirely, it can be rated the same as another city where the average delay on the roads is the same, even if 100 percent of that second city’s commuters are stuck in traffic.

Delay is also blind to how many people a corridor is actually moving — it only looks at the number of vehicles. Should two similar corridors, where the first moves three times the amount of people as the second because of a carpool requirement or a lane dedicated to high-capacity transit, have the same scores for delay just because the travel speed is the same?

With USDOT about to propose this new framework for measuring congestion, it’s worth stating plainly: Roadway delay, similar to what TTI measures, represents a flawed and unrealistic view on measuring congestion.

It also doesn’t mesh with USDOT’s overall priorities, running counter to the stated goals of President Obama’s seven rounds of successful multimodal TIGER investments as well as the priorities of Secretary Foxx’s ambitious Ladders of Opportunity initiative.

A better, properly constructed measure will reward states and regions for investing in projects that make the most cost-effective difference in managing congestion, reducing travel times and improving system performance, regardless of what type of transportation mode is proposed.

What we’re expecting from USDOT

Unfortunately, early indications lead us to believe that the final congestion measure due to be released any day now will incorporate a variation on roadway delay. But that won’t be the end of the line for something better. Just like the past two rules that largely focused on safety and the conditions of roads and bridges, USDOT will be opening a comment period after the rule is released and then refining it one last time.

Though we’ll have an uphill battle, through coordination and agreement on a preferred alternative (more on that in our next post), we stand a strong shot at getting language included that acknowledges the limitation of these conventional congestion measures and invites development of a better, more holistic measure that provides a fuller picture of congestion and who is or isn’t affected.

But we won’t be able to do this alone. We will need cities, MPOs, transit agencies, the business community, state DOTs and advocates just like you to support our effort to ensure that the final congestion measure more fully accounts for all modes of transportation and doesn’t reinforce flawed 1950’s measures of success.

Find out who made the “Best Complete Streets Policies of 2015” list tomorrow (4/12)

More than 80 communities passed Complete Streets policies in 2015, and these policies are some of the strongest and most effective ever passed. Which policies stood out as the best? Find out tomorrow when Smart Growth America’s National Complete Streets Coalition unveils the annual ranking of the best Complete Streets policies in the nation.

Guadalupe Street in Austin, TX. Austin had one of the highest-scoring policies of 2014. Which communities will be on the 2015 list? Photo courtesy of the City of Austin.

Crossposted from Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition

Notably this year, one community scored a perfect 100 on their Complete Streets policy. In the near decade that we have been tracking policies, this is the first time a community has achieved a perfect score. Which community passed the perfect policy? Join us for the launch of this year’s rankings to find out.

To kick off this year’s rankings, join us for an online discussion on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 from 1:00-2:00 PM EDT. This event is free, but registration is required. Webinar registrants will also be the first to get a copy of this year’s rankings, bright and early tomorrow morning. Register today for tomorrow’s kickoff event.

WHAT:	Announcing “The Best Complete Streets Policies of 2015”
WHEN:	Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 1:00-2:00 PM EDT
WHO:	National Complete Streets Coalition staff, leaders from communities with top-scoring policies, and additional special guests

Join the event to find out which community scored a perfect 100, learn how communities create top-scoring policies, and understand what your community can do to craft an outstanding policy of its own.

2015 Complete Streets contenders

82 communities passed Complete Streets policies in 2015 and were included for consideration in this year’s rankings. They are:

Fairbanks, AK
Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System, AK
North Pole, AK
Hot Springs, AR
Little Rock, AR
San Mateo, CA
Moraga, CA
Stamford, CT
West Hartford, CT
Cape Coral, FL
Longwood, FL
Naples, FL
Orlando, FL
St. Petersburg, FL
Gainesville, GA
Savannah, GA
West Des Moines, IA
Windsor Heights, IA
Carbondale, IL
Park Forest, IL
La Porte, IN
South Bend, IN
Vincennes, IN
Dry Ridge, KY
Grant County, KY
Independence, KY
Taylor Mill, KY

Ashland, MA
Beverly, MA
Framingham, MA
Hudson, MA
Lynn, MA
Longmeadow, MA
Natick, MA
Northampton, MA
Norwell, MA
Weymouth, MA
Middleville, MI
Mount Pleasant, MI
Portage, MI
East-West Gateway Council of Governments, MO
Pagedale, MO
St. Louis, MO
Mississippi Gulf Coast Metropolitan Planning Organization, MS
Oxford, MS
Glendive, MT
Polson, MT
Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, NC
Raleigh, NC
Omaha, NE
Keene, NH
Swanzey, NH

Asbury Park, NJ
Bound Brook, NJ
East Amwell, NJ
Hamilton, NJ
Monroe, NJ
Moorestown, NJ
Northfield, NJ
Somerville, NJ
Albuquerque, NM
Bernalillo County, NM
Mid-Region Council of Governments, NM
Auburn, NY
Chautauqua County, NY
Sodus Point, NY
Owasso, OK
Reading, PA
Myrtle Beach, SC
Sioux Falls, SD
Tennessee Department of Transportation
East Ridge, TN
Battle Ground, WA
Mabton, WA
Sunnyside, WA
Toppenish, WA
Wapato, WA

Complete Streets policies—including laws, resolutions, executive orders, policies, and planning and design documents—encourage and provide safe access to destinations for everyone, regardless of age, ability, income, ethnicity, or how they travel.

The Coalition evaluates policies based on 10 policy elements, including the policy’s vision, the project types included, and next steps for implementation, among others. Ogdensburg, NY had the nation’s highest-scoring policy in 2014.

More than 830 jurisdictions at the local, regional, and state levels have now enacted Complete Streets policies—a remarkable feat considering that a mere 33 policies were in place a decade ago. Join us on April 12 to celebrate the best policies of 2015 and safer, more convenient streets that work for everyone.

More on the engineering metric that has an outsize impact on the design of our communities

California changed how the state measures the performance of their streets in 2013, shifting away from a narrow focus on moving as many cars as fast as possible — level of service (LOS) — and taking a more holistic view and measuring their performance against a broader list of other state goals that were often in conflict with LOS. But what is LOS? How does it impact how communities can design their streets?

In this second post of a longer series on level of service (LOS) only for T4America members, we walk through this metric in more detail and explain how it often works against a state’s, metro area’s or city’s other stated goals. Read the first post here.

Introduction

You may be familiar with this story: a community has plans to rejuvenate the economy by redesigning the local street (yet also state highway) running through its downtown, only to be told by the state department of transportation (DOT) that their proposed changes will slow down traffic and doesn’t rate high enough on their metrics to make it onto the short list of projects. Worse yet, the community is told that in order to make a street safer, they actually need to widen it and smooth out any curves, making it a virtual speedway, which would undercut the economic development opportunities.[1]

How do DOTs come to this conclusion that the proposed changes or new development would cause the roadway not to perform well? Most DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations and traffic engineers rely on a metric known as level of service (LOS). According to Jason Henderson, professor of geography at San Francisco State University, “Every city I’ve ever come across has some use of [LOS].”[2] Because of the ubiquity of LOS, this largely misunderstood measurement has profound influence on the design of our communities.

What is level of service?

Level of service is a system by which road engineers measure road performance on a graded scale of A through F. LOS measures how well a road is performing based on the number of cars and the delay automobiles experience on that roadway. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A, B and C representing free flowing conditions, while LOS F is stop-and-go traffic.[3] The score is assessed based on the highest level of congestion on that roadway, even if it only occurs a few minutes a day. Traditionally, roadway conditions are acceptable if they score a C or higher on non-urban streets and a D or higher on urban streets.[4]

Example of level of service graphic[5]

The LOS measurement is calculated by first measuring the amount of traffic during the busiest 15 minutes of an evening rush hour. Then traffic engineers project the amount of traffic on the road in 20 or 30 years using the result of that measurement to determine if the road has enough capacity to cover the lifespan of that asset.[6]

One surprising aspect of the usage of LOS that many people don’t realize is how LOS is not just about how a road functions today. If a road is projected by traffic engineers to lack capacity 20 years in the future — an incredibly fuzzy practice that’s more art than math — that road still receives a failing LOS grade today, even if the road is adequately suiting capacity needs.[7]

The history of LOS

The 1965 federal Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual introduced the LOS metric and it quickly became accepted as the standard measure of roadway performance.[8] One reason that states adopted the LOS so quickly was that it suited the country’s transportation goals in the 1960’s of building out a network of interstates and prioritizing automobiles to travel.[9]

Although LOS became the standard, transportation agencies at any level are not explicitly required to use it: there are no planning or project design requirements that mandate the use of either LOS or travel modelling. Planning manuals from both the the Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration “clearly state that these are guidelines to be applied with judgment — not mandate(s)”[10]

It is important to point out that although LOS was initially meant exclusively for highways and cities aren’t required to abide LOS as a course of law, over the years the measure has hardened into convention for all roads. The adoption of this convention means that LOS has routinely been used for the design of city streets.[11] Eric Jaffe of Atlantic Cities in 2011 noted that “By the time cities recognized the need for balanced transportation systems, LOS was entrenched in the street engineering canon.”[12]

What’s next in the series on LOS?

In our forthcoming third post in this series, we will explain in more practical detail how LOS has damaged communities, organizations, and advocates promoting smart-growth. As Gary Toth from the Project for Public Spaces brilliantly put it, transportation professionals, “in search of high LOS rankings have widened streets, added lanes, removed on-street parking, limited crosswalks, and deployed other (anti-smart growth) strategies” all because LOS has been the de facto standard over the last 50 years.[13]

If we are going to change the way our streets and communities are designed, we will need to change the way we measure their performance.

Citations

[1] See for example highway 23 in Wisconsin: http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/ne/wis23corridorsheb/default.aspx or Interstate 59/Interstate 20 in Birmingham Alabama: https://t4america.org/2016/02/02/alabama-dot-out-of-step-with-metro-business-leaders-on-economic-development/
[2] Jaffe, E (2011, December 5th) “The Transportation Planning Rule Every City Should Reform”. Citylab. Retrieved 2/03/2016 from http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2011/12/transportation-planning-law-every-city-should-repeal/636/
[3] Transportation Research Board (2000). Highway Capacity Manual. Retrieved 1/25/2016 from City and County of San Francisco Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure at http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References%5C2000_TRB.pdf
[4] Toth, G “Levels of Service and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets?” Project for Public Spaces. Retrieved 1/25/2016 from http://www.pps.org/reference/levels-of-service-and-travel-projections-the-wrong-tools-for-planning-our-streets/
[5] Creative Commons Santa Clara County Expressway Level of Service Map by Richard Masoner is licensed under CC by 2.0. Retrieved February 3^rd
[6] Roth, Matthew (2009, January 26^th) “Paradise LOSt (Part I): How Long Will the City Keep Us Stuck in Our Cars?”. Streetsblog. Retrieved 1/25/2016 from http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/
[7] Ibid Toth, G “Levels of Service and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets?”
[8] Jaffe, E (2014, July 8th) “Transit Projects Are About to Get Much, Much Easier in California”. Citylab. Retrieved 1/25/2016 from http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/07/transit-projects-are-about-to-get-much-much-easier-in-california/374049/
[9] Ibid Toth, G “Levels of Service and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets?”
[10] Ibid Toth, G “Levels of Service and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets?”
[11] Jaffe, E (2011, December 5th) “The Transportation Planning Rule Every City Should Reform”. Citylab. Retrieved 1/25/2016 from http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2011/12/transportation-planning-law-every-city-should-repeal/636/
[12] Ibid Jaffe, E (2011, December 5th) “The Transportation Planning Rule Every City Should Reform”
[13] Ibid Toth, G “Levels of Service and Travel Projections: The Wrong Tools for Planning Our Streets?”

Did you miss last week’s discussion on the 2016 TIGER grant program?

If you missed last week’s online discussion about this year’s $500 million TIGER grant program and the new $800 million FASTLANE freight grant program, catch up here with the full presentation and audio.

It was great — though not surprising — to see so much interest about how to prepare the best possible application. After all, these programs are among the very few ways for local communities to access federal funds directly for important projects.

For this that missed the session or were unable to attend, we wanted to provide the presentation and full audio of the session — with the full Q&A at the end.

Download the presentation. (3.5 mb PDF)
Download the full audio. (6 mb mp3)

We mentioned it during the session, but we want to make sure you also know about our expanded suite of technical assistance offerings, announced last week.

Transportation for America technical assistance

As Beth Osborne, the head of our technical assistance program, noted yesterday, we do offer assistance with TIGER applications through that service, offering advice, writing or review support to help give you the best possible chance to win funding. We’ve even written several applications in the past and can provide that service if you’re interested, so please get in touch with us directly or through the form at the bottom of that page.

T4America members thinking of applying for TIGER this year get a free hour of time from our team of TIGER experts. Not a member but interested in learning more about joining T4America? Contact Erika Young at erika.young@t4america.org.

And keep an eye out for more from us about TIGER in the months ahead. Congress will once again be deciding the future of this program beyond 2016 during the appropriations process that’s underway now, and you can help preserve it by weighing in with your legislators when the time is right.

A look at progress around the country on improving state transportation policy & raising new funding

Scores of state legislatures are still in session or nearing the end of their sessions. With transportation funding and policy on the docket in scores of states, here’s a roundup of the progress being made in states working to create more transparency, build more public trust in transportation spending, and even raise new money.

Many state legislatures are in the crunch time of crossover days and committee deadlines. Many more are already taking the long view and looking ahead to big policy changes later this year or after the next election. Here’s a roundup of the top stories:

Our refreshed state policy bill tracker is the best way to keep tabs on the most current information about these states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy — all tracked in three separate searchable, sortable tables of that information.

In addition, our hub for state policy and funding related resources includes all past and current reports, bill trackers, and other state-focused resources.

LOCAL FUNDING

After an up-and-down last few years when it comes to transportation funding, the Georgia state legislature successfully passed a pared-back bill last week that will allow voters in the City of Atlanta to decide the question of raising new funds for expanded transit service throughout the city, in addition to other transportation investments in the city.

A similar bill (SB 313) earlier this year would have allowed all counties served by MARTA to raise sales taxes for transit, but that one stalled due to opposition from outside the city. We wrote about the new alternative compromise package last week after its passage:

The legislation (SB 369) enables three new local funding sources, each dependent on approval through voter referenda. 1) The City of Atlanta can request voter approval for an additional half-cent sales tax through 2057 explicitly for transit, bringing in an estimated $2.5 billion for MARTA transit. 2) Through a separate ballot question the city could ask for another half-cent for road projects. 3) And in Fulton County outside the city, mayors will need to agree to a package of road and transit projects and ask voters to approve up to a ¾-cent sales tax to fund the projects.

The bill passed the House 159-4 on March 16 and passed the Senate last week, on the last day of the session.

While empowering local voters to raise new local funds is a step forward, the Georgia legislature also took a step back last week, passing a bill that requires a successful voter referendum before any county can spend money on fixed-guideway transit projects. Georgia doesn’t require a similar hurdle for highway projects. This bill (SB 420) exempts current MARTA service areas, the Beltline and the Atlanta streetcar, but it would slow down planned bus rapid transit projects in Cobb County in suburban Atlanta.

Support is building in Massachusetts for a proposal introduced by Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham), a START network member, to enable cities and towns to raise local taxes to fund transportation projects with approval through voter referenda. See some of the supportive arguments for Massachusetts’ bill here and here. T4America provided a national perspective and supported the bill at legislative briefing earlier this month at the capitol. Also briefing legislators was Mayor Greg Ballard, former mayor of Indianapolis, a region that recently gained legislative approval to raise local taxes for transit projects. Ballard provided lessons learned from his efforts at the state capitol and preparation for an expected ballot question this fall.

What’s the START Network?

We support efforts to produce and pass state legislation to increase transportation funding, advance innovation and policy reform, empower local leaders and ensure accountability and transparency through our State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training (START) Network of state and local elected officials, advocates and civic leaders. Join the START network today.

STATE FUNDING

Louisiana legislators just ended a special session on the budget without a comprehensive or long-term plan to fully close the state’s structural budget deficit. With more red ink looming in the state’s general budget, efforts to raise new revenue for the transportation fund face long odds.

Looking past the budget deficit, new Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) identified new Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans rail service as a priority, vowing to do “everything he could” to get new trains rolling.

Connecticut’s transportation committee advanced a “lockbox” provision (HJ 1) to dedicate certain revenue only for transportation projects. Republicans warn they will still oppose the measure unless the wording is tightened to prevent any diversion of money from the state’s special transportation fund. Constitutionally dedicating revenue from fuel taxes, vehicle fees, and a portion of the gas tax is seen as a necessary prerequisite to raising these taxes to bring in new money for transportation. While there is bipartisan support, at least in principle, a measure earlier this year failed to reach the necessary supermajority when a bloc of Republican House members said the measure would not go far enough in dedicating transportation dollars.

Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) called for big investments in all modes across the state in the 30-year, Let’s Go CT plan. But adding a new lane in each direction on I-95 across the state, one of the biggest and most expensive projects on the list, is drawing substantial opposition. Opponents note that a new lane will do little to ease traffic or advance the state’s 21st century knowledge economy. The state DOT counters that their plan for new capacity coupled with dynamic management through new electronic tolling would cut down on “induced demand” by making it more expensive, and so less desirable, for new drivers to fill new space on the roads.

A proposal in the Mississippi Senate to raise transportation taxes or issue bonds to fund road projects (SB 2921) was kept alive, but just barely. A procedural move allows negotiations to continue and may allow a last-minute agreement on the issue later in the session.

Minnesota’s legislature is in the fourth week of a short session that must conclude May 23. In that time, legislators will need to find $135 million for the next phase of the Twin Cities’ light rail system — or risk losing $895 million in federal funding and drastically setting back the planned project. Twin Cities local governments are expecting the state to do its part — they’ve already directed $118 million in local funding into the project. Transportation funding was a top issue in last year’s legislative session and members are again looking for a compromise to get more state funding— possibly including new revenue — to roads, bridges, and transit.

STATE REFORM

The Maryland House passed two bills to add objective scoring to the way the state DOT selects projects (HB 1013) and to create a new board to give local oversight over the state transit agency (HB 1010). Both measures are still being revised in the Senate; they must pass both chambers by the time the session ends on April 11th.

MOVING BACKWARD

Tennessee’s bill that would restrict gas tax receipts for any bicycle or pedestrian projects may be losing steam. The bill (HB 1650/SB 1716) was slowly making progress in the House, but this week the House delayed a hearing and the Senate scheduled a hearing for the bill on the last day of the session – a common way to signal the bill will not be passing this year.

FUNDING & POLICY TRACKER

You can access the full list of funding bills being considered and policies we are tracking throughout the country at our tracker here. As always, get in touch if there are bills you are working on that we should have our eyes on.

Georgia’s legislature moved last night to enable Atlanta to fund new transit & local projects

After an up-and-down last few years when it comes to transportation funding, the Georgia state legislature successfully passed a pared-back bill last night that will allow voters in the City of Atlanta to decide whether or not to raise new funds for expanded transit service throughout the city, in addition to other transportation investments in the city.

Thanks to state legislation, transit could be finally coming to Atlanta’s BeltLine, running alongside the popular trails. Photo via Beltline.org

Under a new law passed late night by the Georgia legislature in the dying hours of the session, the city will be able to put a question on the ballot to finally add transit to the one-of-a-kind Beltline around the city, expand existing bus and rail service, or fund other new transit projects. The city will also be able to raise new funds for streets and highways and the remainder of Fulton County (which surrounds and includes part of Atlanta) will be able to raise new local sales taxes for road and transit projects outside the city.

The legislation (SB 369) enables three new local funding sources, each dependent on approval through voter referenda. 1) The City of Atlanta can request voter approval for an additional half-cent sales tax through 2057 explicitly for transit, bringing in an estimated $2.5 billion for MARTA transit. 2) Through a separate ballot question the city could ask for another half-cent for road projects. 3) And in Fulton County outside the city, mayors will need to agree to a package of road and transit projects and ask voters to approve up to a ¾-cent sales tax to fund the projects.

After a bigger regional bill failed a few weeks ago that would have given the transit ballot authority to more counties and municipalities outside of the core city and Fulton county, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that last night’s bill “represents a compromise with GOP lawmakers who opposed an earlier plan put forth by Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta.”

That effort earlier in the session would have enabled a larger transit measure in Atlanta and both adjoining counties, Fulton and DeKalb. Opposition to new transit measures — especially in Fulton County — sunk that legislation and when that bill died a few weeks ago, it seemed at the time like the end of the line for new transit funding in this legislative session.

Last night’s compromise bill that emerged from the ashes will enable a new, long-term funding stream for transit in the city of Atlanta, where support is the strongest. If approved, the new funding would allow the largest expansion of MARTA in the system’s history and allow more transit to connect and permeate growing in-town neighborhoods.

LOOKING BACK IN ATLANTA

After an up-and-down last few years for transportation funding, this is a big win for the regional economic powerhouse of metro Atlanta.

T4America members like the Metro Atlanta Chamber have been hearing from their members (and potential recruits looking to locate in Atlanta) how important expanded transit is to the city and region’s future. In our widely-cited story from last year, we chronicled how employers in the city are increasingly locating near transit to attract a younger, talented workforce, including State Farm’s plan to build literally right on top of a northside MARTA station.

Dave Williams, VP of Infrastructure & Government Affairs for the Metro Atlanta Chamber and T4A Advisory Board member remarked, “We’re thrilled that MARTA will be back in expansion mode for the first time in more than 15 years. The measure that passed will give Atlanta the opportunity to generate over $2.5 billion in local funding for transit projects. It’s an extraordinary positive step to create more commuting options and there will be more to come.”

“This success resulted from many partners in our community collaborating, including business interests, civic groups, environmental concerns, labor and trades, and engaged citizens,” he added.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed called the failure of 2012’s massive regional transportation ballot measure that included an enormous list of road and transit projects the biggest failure of his political career. Back in the beginning of 2015 in our 15 things to watch in 2015 series of posts, we pointed to Mayor Reed as a person to watch last year, as he was trying to find a way forward on new transportation funding for the city.

[After 2012’s failed referendum, Reed] has often suggested that Atlanta might instead pair up with a few other nearby municipalities on a separate measure to raise funds for transportation. City of Atlanta and Dekalb county voters strongly favored the 2012 measure, so a joint Atlanta-DeKalb plan could be a possibility to watch for discussion of in 2015.

Which is pretty close to what happened this year.

After that 2012 mega-measure failed, they came close to getting new local funding authority for MARTA included in last year’s broad state transportation legislation which raised $900 million, mostly for road projects. But:

At one point during negotiations there was a provision that would have allowed the cities and counties that contribute to MARTA to increase the sales tax dedicated to the system by 0.5 percent via ballot measures, but this provision was removed from the final bill.

With potentially $2.5 billion to invest in new projects, if approved by the voters, MARTA Board Chairman Robbie Ashe told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that the regional transit agency is already working on a list of projects that could be funded through a new local tax in Atlanta.

“My best guess is the lion’s share would go to expanding the transit on the Beltline,” said Ashe, adding that the city might also contemplate building infill rail stations or extending a rail line by a stop or two.

Because of financial constraints, constructing transit lines along the entire 22-mile circle of the Beltline would likely have to be done in phases, rather than all at once, said Ashe.

This is welcome news, but they’re not finished yet. We’ll be watching closely as the city formulates their plan and begins to put together a campaign for a successful ballot measure, possibly as soon as this Fall.

This post was co-written by Dan Levine and Stephen Lee Davis

Oregon DOT provides a wake up call for local leaders in other states

In a move that should raise alarm bells for local leaders in other states, last week the Oregon Department of Transportation decided where to spend nearly $200 million in new money from last year’s FAST Act on their road system with limited to zero public engagement.

I-5 over the Columbia River in Oregon. Flickr photo by Doug Kerr.

The FAST Act, the five-year transportation bill passed by Congress in late 2015, provided a level of funding certainty for state transportation programs that they’ve not had in years. Thanks to a $70 billion transfer from general taxpayer funds into the Highway Trust Fund, the FAST Act also provided a slight increase in funding for each state. This followed on the heels of $75 billion in transfers total over the prior seven years, just to keep the trust fund solvent.

Yet simply funneling more money into the same system won’t necessarily ensure better outcomes for the taxpayers’ investment or that local priorities will be addressed, and Oregon’s actions could be a preview of what might happen in countless other states, deciding not to equitably distribute the new funds to state and local priorities.

Rather than improve the underlying policies that directs each state’s transportation investments, Congress chose to largely direct the FAST Act’s increased funding into new freight programs, the largest of which is being distributed to states by a formula wholly unrelated to freight needs or merit. (This was one of the provisions we called out in our post covering ten things to know about the FAST Act. –Ed.)

This new National Highway Freight Program will dole out more than $1 billion per year to state DOTs with zero relation to the value or tonnage of the freight moved within its borders. It also predetermines that the solution to any freight problem is highway-related by directing all but 10 percent of each state’s funding to highway development only, disregarding the fact that these funds were not collected from gas taxes.

In addition, the increase in funds in the main highway programs are also directed largely to state DOT owned roads (interstates and highways). Thus, local governments must be prepared to ensure their priorities are addressed and the states share in their newfound resources, however large those may be.

Case in point: Oregon.

As Bike Portland originally reported back on 3/17, The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), with the approval of its Transportation Commission, programmed $196 million in new funding from the FAST Act on Thursday, March 17. While ODOT is correct that the majority of its new funding is from the highway freight formula program, the agency has misinformed (pdf) their audience by stating the funds must be allocated to “freight-related projects on high-volume, high-priority truck freight routes, primarily the Interstate.”

Congress provides ODOT, and every other state, great flexibility to direct federal highway dollars to priority projects — state or local, highway or non-highway. Every state has the flexibility to transfer 50 percent of its funding for a highway program to a separate highway program such as the highly flexible and locally accessible Surface Transportation Program, which can be used on almost any type of important project.

While nearly 40 percent of the additional $200 million in Oregon will support fix-it-first projects – a priority that Transportation for America supports —95 percent of the new funding will likely go to state-owned highways and almost nothing is done to improve transparency and accountability for the public. To wit: the list of project types receiving funds does not provide a discussion or rationale for which projects will receive the new funding or why any particular project category received funding.

The murky process of picking projects in a way that is nearly impossible for the public to decipher will continue.

ODOT will not begin spending the nearly $200 million in newly programmed funds until 2018, which provides Oregon’s local leaders two years to build their case to receive a greater portion of the new funding from the FAST Act for their priorities.

But today and tomorrow, Oregon’s example illustrates why local leaders in other states need to proactively engage their state representatives and DOT to ensure their state’s new funding from the FAST Act is shared and supports both local and state priorities.

Click here to review the amount of highway funding directed to your state DOT from the FAST Act

Though not selected as finalists, other Smart Cities Challenge applicants still hopeful to make their plans a reality

Though 77 cities will leave USDOT’s Smart Cities competition empty-handed later this summer, T4America is looking to help many of those cities advance the great ideas still deserving of help.

Seven cities were selected two weekends ago as semifinalists in the first-ever Smart City Challenge from USDOT, a competition that will eventually award $40 million to just one of those seven cities to help them rethink urban mobility, powered by innovative new technologies. Which means that 77 of the 78 will ultimately walk away empty-handed without any funding. (Save for the $100,000 that the seven semifinalists received to further develop their initial proposals.)

After reaching out over the last few months to all of the cities that applied, T4America held an invite-only conference call earlier this week to offer advice and support for advancing parts of their applications forward; applications with interesting responses to the question of how to rethink the future of transportation within cities of all sizes.

USDOT was a guest on our webinar, offering ideas, suggestions about other possibly little-known federal programs that can be used to advance certain ideas, or more information about grant programs like TIGER or the new freight grant program that can meet the need.

One of the most interesting things that USDOT shared with everyone was this graphic showing a list of 13 challenges facing cities. (There are certainly others, but this is fascinating summary of some of the most pressing.)

USDOT smart cities — challenges for cities

Win or lose the Smart Cities Challenge, these issues above are ones that cities of all size face today or will be facing in the future for years to come as the landscape radically changes due to the impact of new technologies, consumer preferences and new mobility options.

We at Transportation for America are excited to find ways to support these other cities that are eager, engaged and motivated to become smarter cities and ask big questions about the future of mobility in their communities. This week was a small step forward, and we’re hopeful for more chances to help support cities that are ready to rethink the status quo when it comes to transportation.

Are you associated with one of the cities that applied (or chose not to for whatever reason) and missed the invite-only conference call this week? Email us at smartcities@t4america.org

Secretary Foxx questioned at Senate THUD Appropriations hearing

The Senate Transportation, Housing & Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations Subcommittee hosted Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, as well as USDOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel, on Wednesday, March 16 to discuss the department’s FY2017 budget request.

Here are some of the key highlights from the hearing:

Skepticism over a larger, new funding request

The administration’s budget would grow funding for the department to $98 billion in FY17, in part by raising new revenue through a new, $10.25-per-barrel oil fee. Chairman Susan Collins (R-ME) opened the hearing with a note of disappointment and incredulity that the administration would submit such a sizable revenue proposal just months after Congress passed the five-year FAST Act and after many years of debate over transportation finance in which the administration declined to offer specific funding options.

Support for TIGER funding

Several members of the committee—including Chairman Collins (R-ME), Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), and Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Christopher Coons (D-DE), and John Boozman (R-AR) voiced their support for the TIGER program and the projects it has funded. Sen. Boozman, however, had concerns about the department’s support for applicants and the way it helped strengthen the proposals in from applicants who were not awarded funds. Sec. Foxx spoke to the outreach the department is already doing and noted the success the program has had in funding projects in rural areas.

Support for Amtrak primarily in Northeast Corridor

There was support for Amtrak primarily from the two senators from the Northeast Corridor, Sens. Jack Reed (D-RI) and Christopher Coons (D-DE). They each spoke of the importance of making capital improvements on that corridor. Sen. Reed also sought assurance that the Northeast Corridor Futures project would not realign Amtrak service out of his state.

Metro closure was the only transit topic of conversation

The only discussion of transit in the hearing focused on the emergency shutdown of Washington’s Metrorail system. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, focused her questioning on ways that Congress or the department can further ensure Metro’s safety and improve reliability. Sec. Foxx placed the onus for additional improvement on the local jurisdictions—the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia—to make safety a priority for the agency. He also said the department is looking into ways that it can require open grants to the agency be used for safety purposes.

There was no discussion of Capital Grants (New Starts) or other transit funding.

USDOT want to support all Smart City Challenge applicants

Several members asked how the department is anticipating new technology, especially autonomous vehicles. Sec. Foxx spoke of the innovative ideas submitted through the Smart City Challenge grant program. Though the department will pick just one winner, Foxx said the department plans to advise all of the losing cities on ways they may be able to fund their visions through other, existing funding sources.

USDOT on the way to establishing the Innovative Finance Bureau

In response to a question from Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) about P3 financing for roads, Sec. Foxx said the department is well on the way to standing up the National Surface Transportation and Innovative Finance Bureau, a consolidated office for innovative financing created under the FAST Act.

Timing going forward

House Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers has announced that committee will begin consideration of the first of 12 appropriations bills next week and we expect the Senate to proceed on a similar schedule, debating bills through April following the Easter recess. The House will apparently start on these appropriations bills even through consideration of the budget resolution has been postponed two weeks until after the recess. (The budget resolution declares intended top-line spending amounts, while appropriations bills set specific, program-level outlays.)

Supporters spoke out for safer streets, and USDOT listened

Thanks to the action of supporters like you, all Americans will be safer on our streets. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Transportation released a much-improved ruling for how states and metro areas should measure — and be held accountable for improving — the safety of streets for everyone that uses them.

Back in 2014, 1,500 Transportation for America, Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets Coalition supporters sent a letter calling for the U.S. Department of Transportation to make the safety of all roadway users a top priority, and your voice has clearly been heard. Yesterday USDOT released its final safety rule for a new system of measuring the performance of our transportation investments that includes new and improved language to hold states and metro areas accountable for reducing preventable pedestrian deaths and injuries.

Under the last federal transportation law (MAP-21), USDOT was required to create a new system to govern how federal dollars are spent by measuring the performance of those dollars against tangible goals and outcomes. The first proposed measure dealt entirely with safety guidelines that would hold states and metro areas accountable for tracking their progress in reducing traffic collisions. But the proposal USDOT initially came up with was too weak to be effective.

That’s where supporters like you came in. Over 1,500 people mobilized to tell USDOT to make that measure stronger, and to hold states and metro areas accountable for the safety of everyone on the road — no matter how they’re choosing to get around. Smart Growth America’s President and CEO Geoff Anderson personally hand-delivered those letters to USDOT Secretary Anthony Foxx—all 1,500 of them.

Yesterday’s final ruling is leaps and bounds ahead of what was originally proposed. Some of the highlights include:

Five measures in total, and they include people on foot or bike: rate of serious injuries; rate of fatalities; total serious injuries; total fatalities; and the number of combined non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.
States and MPOs must set targets for reducing fatalities for people on foot or bike. It’s treated as an equal measure to the others.
States and MPOs must make progress on four of the five measures.
Significant progress will be measured by beating targets. If that doesn’t occur, states must at least beat their baselines for each measure.
USDOT will not wait to finish developing the rest of the performance measures before they begin rolling out this safety measure.

Logged-in T4America members can read a more detailed memo on the final rule below.

[member_content]Members: Click here to access the policy memo.[/member_content]

Senate Commerce Committee considers the (rapidly approaching) autonomous vehicle future

Yesterday the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing with representatives from the autonomous vehicle industry to gather input on the needs and concerns of the rapidly growing industry.

Witnesses were:

Chris Urmson, Director of Self-Driving Cars, Google X
Mike Ableson, Vice President, Strategy and Global Portfolio Planning, General Motors Company
Glen DeVos, Vice President, Global Engineering and Services, Electronics and Safety, Delphi Automotive
Joseph Okpaku, Vice President of Government Relations, Lyft
Mary (Missy) Louise Cummings, Director, Humans and Autonomy Lab and Duke Robotics, Duke University

The key takeaways from this hearing were:

Autonomous vehicle technology is rapidly advancing and is close to market.

Each witness highlighted the strides their own companies have made. The message from all the panelists is that this in no longer an abstraction, but real technology that could very soon be on the road.

Mr. Ableson from GM and especially Mr. DeVos from Delphi focused on market-ready technologies that add semi-autonomous features to vehicles. Certain 2017 model year Cadillacs will feature technology allowing the cars to drive themselves on the highway. DeVos highlighted several crash avoidance and warning systems that will soon be entering the market and praised committee members for including a provision in last year’s FAST Act that adds new safety ratings for such technologies, incentivizing their adoption.

Google’s fully autonomous vehicles are further away, but Dr. Urmson noted that these vehicles have already logged 1.4 million miles in testing.

Despite these impressive advances, there are still significant hurdles to overcome. Dr. Cummings noted the challenges that autonomous vehicles face, for instance, in dealing with rain or other poor weather.

Panelists were concerned about conflicting regulations.

Panelists all expressed concerns about the possibility of a “patchwork” of overlapping or conflicting regulations enacted at the state or local level and requested that the committee and federal regulators such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) steer consistent rules nationwide.

But disagreements about what and how much regulation is appropriate.

While panelists asked the committee to help avoid a patchwork of local regulations, they were reluctant to back any specific federal regulations on the industry, either. Several senators brought but unresolved regulatory challenges. Ranking Member Sen. Nelson (D-FL) struck a cautionary tone and brought up the ongoing recall of Takata airbags of an example of the devastating impact of design defects. Sens. Markey (D-MA) and Blumenthal (D-CT) pushed the panelists on what regulations they would endorse. But under direct questions from Sen. Markey all of the industry representatives would not support any mandatory requirements over safety or privacy, arguing that the industry is evolving too quickly for regulators to keep up. Dr. Cummings, speaking from an academic perspective, cautioned about technology moving to quickly to implementation, but also warned that federal regulators did not have the expertise to keep up with technological developments.

Autonomous vehicles will bring new business models.

Mr. Ableson from GM and Mr. Opaku from Lyft frequently brought up the new arrangement between the two companies which they see as a way to pioneer autonomous vehicles through a growing rideshare market. This strategic move from GM—an effort to move from selling vehicles to selling mobility—shows how disruptive this technology can be. Transportation network companies—especially Uber and Lyft—have already created an entirely new transportation service in only a few years, using existing technology. Adding radically new technology will undoubtedly be transformative.

Autonomous vehicles will be transformative and bring big benefits.

Committee members brought up numerous benefits of autonomous vehicles. The safety benefits could be tremendous, given that nationwide 38,000 people die each year in car crashes and 90% of those involve driver error. Additionally, several senators and the panelists noted the potential to help people with disabilities and others who currently have poor mobility options connect to economic opportunity. In his opening remarks, Chairman Thune (R-SD) noted that the transformation in how Americans get around would also allow cities to reclaim the one-third of their land now devoted to parking, increase vehicle efficiency, and turn time now wasted behind the wheel into productive, quality time.

Even with quick technological development, full implementation could take a long time.

Mr. DeVos of Delphi noted that the average vehicle on the road today is 11 years old, and there are more than 262 million vehicles registered across the country. Mr. Ableson said GM is only designing autonomous vehicles from the ground up and, from their perspective, autonomous retrofits would not be possible. That means even if the first autonomous vehicles are close to the market, it will take a long time for a large portion of the vehicle fleet to be autonomous without bigger changes to how people get around.

Creative placemaking in practice in the Twin Cities

The Scenic Route is T4America’s primer on creative placemaking in transportation. But what does creative placemaking look like in practice? We can see the evolution of this approach, and the potential benefits from it, in the recent experience of the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Reminder: Have you browsed our new guidebook to creative placemaking yet? Visit

Have you browsed our new guidebook to creative placemaking yet? Visit http://creativeplacemaking.t4america.org

In the early 2000’s, Minneapolis built their first light rail line, now called the Blue Line. A comprehensive public art process during the planning and construction of the Blue Line resulted in unique station designs that reflected local histories, but that uniqueness and community participation seemed to end at the station. Community leaders saw missed opportunities to strengthen their neighborhoods. Regional leaders saw missed opportunities to tap the transformative potential of transit-oriented-development (TOD).

The region followed a different approach in building the Green Line connecting Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul.

Vowing to be neither top-down nor laissez-faire about what kind of development and other changes would occur, city leaders and planners took risks to develop unprecedented partnerships with funders, neighborhood organizations, artists, and cultural groups well ahead of the groundbreaking. Their goal was community-led transformation that would help existing businesses thrive during and beyond construction, create new economic opportunities for residents, and preserve the neighborhoods’ unique cultural characters and institutions.

Photo courtesy of the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative

Civic groups held visioning sessions to determine what the community wanted to see. Creative events helped businesses stay afloat during construction. Community organizers ensured the line would serve all communities, and local governments worked with artists to develop robust civic arts programming at the opening. Not only was the line built without the acrimony of previous projects, but dozens of artists and community collaborators participated in hundreds of initiatives large and small that have left a powerful civic legacy.

Placemaking that includes artists, cultural institutions and community creativity offers new ways to take advantage of these kinds of transformative investments and the associated planning processes to engage, elevate, and empower affected communities.

It can lead not only to a better, more inclusive process, but also to better projects that better serve the community.

Visit The Scenic Route to read a much more detailed version of the Twin Cities’ story of success and check out some fresh templates for bringing local creativity and culture into your work.

Photo courtesy of the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative

Seven semifinalist cities selected over the weekend in USDOT’s Smart City Challenge

Over the weekend, while appearing at the South by Southwest Interactive festival, USDOT Secretary Anthony Foxx announced the selection of seven cities to continue as semifinalists in the first-ever Smart City Challenge — a competition that will eventually award $40 million to just one city to “use technology to connect transportation assets into an interactive network.”

Through this open competition for a sizable grant award, the USDOT and Secretary Foxx have asked cities to think big on the future of mobility, and what could they do with $40 million to bring that future to fruition.

78 cities from 34 states plus the District of Columbia applied for their chance to win the single $40 million grant. Foxx, speaking at SXSW on Saturday, said, “The level of excitement and energy the Smart City Challenge has created around the country far exceeded our expectations,” said Secretary Foxx. “After an overwhelming response – 78 applications total – we chose to select seven finalists instead of five because of their outstanding potential to transform the future of urban transportation.”

The cities of Austin, TX; Columbus, OH; Denver, CO; Kansas City, MO; Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; and San Francisco, CA will now receive $100,000 each to put more meat on the bones of their proposals and create a detailed roadmap on how they will make their plans a reality. Come June, one of those cities will be selected to receive the full $40 million grant to implement their winning plan over a three-year period.

What about the other 73 cities?

USDOT kicked off an incredibly important discussion and 78 cities responded by asking big questions about the future of transportation within our cities. While we’re celebrating these seven cities today, come this Summer, there will be 77 cities that leave empty-handed, and many of them will have great ideas still deserving of help.

Where can they turn?

For one, we at Transportation for America are kicking off an effort to help support these other cities that are eager, engaged and motivated to become smarter cities and ask big questions about the future of mobility in their communities. Next week, we’re going to be holding an invite-only online discussion soon with the applicants that weren’t selected. (We’re reaching out to most of you directly, but if you’re interested and don’t hear from us, email us at smartcities@t4america.org)

More than 300 private companies — whether popular providers like Uber or Lyft, backend technology companies like Amazon Web Services or Google, or providers of intelligent transportation systems like NXP or Siemens — have expressed their interest to USDOT to work not just with the winning city, but with other smart, forward looking cities that are thinking about the future of urban mobility.

These other cities will certainly need help figuring out how best to proceed, and how best to do it without the aid of a $40 million grant to kickstart their efforts.

T4America will be announcing some exciting partnerships in the coming days and weeks that will help make connections between these cities and the private companies, providers and experts to help support their work, so stay tuned.

Interested in learning more about or applying for this year’s TIGER grants? Join us on 3/24

Though the future of the program is perpetually up in the air, $500 million in competitive federal funding is available for smart, local transportation projects this year in the TIGER program, and Transportation for America is here to help you learn more about the program.

Is your community interested in applying for a TIGER transportation grant? Are you looking for help and support in preparing the best possible grant application?

The fiercely competitive TIGER program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects. Projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to ensure that each dollar is spent in the most effective way possible, spurring innovation, stretching federal transportation dollars further than in conventional formula programs, and awarding funding to projects with a high-return on investment.

But the program is, as stated above, fiercely competitive. Over the life of the program, the requests for funding have been 50 times greater than what’s been available. There are far more losers than there are winners in the TIGER program. Being prepared with the best possible project and application is key to winning, and T4America can help.

Join us for a free, public webinar on Thursday March 24 at 4 p.m. EST on the latest round of TIGER funding with some pointers from T4America senior policy advisor and USDOT veteran Beth Osborne, and Smart Growth America director of research Michael Rodriguez on how to win funding for your project.

The webinar itself will cover what makes applications competitive, what USDOT has been looking for throughout the program’s seven rounds so far, the role of the benefit-cost analysis, the importance of the non-federal match (i.e., local dollars brought to the table), how shovel-ready a project needs to be, the importance of support from local elected officials, and typical mistakes to avoid, among other helpful areas of interest.

During this discussion, we’ll also have information about T4America’s technical assistance offerings and opportunities for professional consulting on your project. Our technical assistance program can actually help with grant application writing, review, and drafting of the benefit-cost analysis. We can also provide detailed advice and valuable insight into the TIGER process for those that might just want more details than a webinar would provide.

Benefits for T4America members

T4America members also have the option of receiving limited free technical assistance for TIGER. Logged-in members will see information about that below. Interested in joining as a T4America member? Find out more information here.

[member_content]Transportation for America members interested in applying for TIGER receive the option of an hour with Beth Osborne to walk through your project and talk about strategy for their application. If you’re interested in scheduling this, get in touch with Erika Young at erika.young@t4america.org or 202-955-5543 x239[/member_content]

Over 170 local elected, business and civic leaders from 45 states call on Congress to support TIGER & public transit funding

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC — Over 170 elected officials and local, civic and business leaders from 45 U.S. states today sent a letter to congressional appropriators urging them to provide at least $500 million for another round of TIGER competitive transportation grants as well as the full amount authorized in last year’s FAST Act for new transit construction.

As Congress begins to craft the transportation budget for the 2017 fiscal year, the 170-plus local leaders of all stripes, representing an incredible diversity of places, sent a powerful message that opportunities provided by TIGER and FTA’s New Starts program are crucial to their long-term success.

The fiercely competitive TIGER program is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects, and represents one of the most fiscally responsible transportation programs administered by USDOT. Unlike the overwhelming majority of all federal transportation dollars that are awarded via formulas to ensure that all states or metro areas get a share, regardless of how they’re going to spend those dollars, the federal government has found a smart way to use a small amount of money to incentivize the best projects possible through TIGER. Projects vying for funding compete against each other on their merits to ensure that each dollar is spent in the most effective way possible and through the first seven rounds, each TIGER dollar has brought in 3.5 non-federal dollars.

It’s a roadmap to a more efficient way to spend transportation dollars that spurs innovation, stretches federal transportation dollars further than in conventional formula programs, and awards funding to projects that provide a high-return on investment. And according to these hundreds of local leaders who know the needs of their communities best, congressional appropriators would be remiss to provide any less than the $500 million it has typically received since its inception in 2009.

The letter also calls on appropriators to fully fund the federal government’s primary resource for supporting new, locally-planned and supported transit expansion projects. The New and Small Starts programs have facilitated the creation of dozens of new or extended public transportation systems across the country, also awarded competitively to the best projects.

Congress already recognized the importance of this program in the FAST Act when they increased its authorization by $400 million for this fiscal year. The 178 signatories on the letter fully expect appropriators to fund the program at it’s fully authorized level of $2.3 billion in the FAST Act, our country’s current transportation law. From the letter:

As you prepare the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, we write to respectfully request that the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program is funded at or above FY16 level of $500 million and that the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Grants program is funded at the FAST Act authorization level of $2.3 billion.

Both the TIGER and Capital Investment Grants programs complement DOT’s traditional formula-based programs. Both programs provide unique, cost-effective, and innovative solutions that leverage private, state, and local investment to solve complex transportation and spur economic development.

Read the full letter here with all 174 signatories, including 25 mayors (pdf).

Contact: Stephen Lee Davis
Director of Communications
202-971-3902
steve.davis@t4america.org

Massachusetts event highlights the growing trend of states moving to enable more local transportation funding

“Let the voters decide.” It’s a mantra we hear all the time in politics, but not quite as much in transportation. Yet that’s starting to change, as nearly a dozen states have taken steps to empower local communities with new or enhanced taxing authority for transportation over the last few years, putting the question directly in the hands of voters.

Update: (5:23 p.m.) WAMC radio story about the briefing is at the bottom of this post.

Like in Utah, where legislature moved in 2015 to increase the state’s gas tax, tie it to inflation, and then provide individual counties with the ability to go to the ballot to increase sales taxes to raise yet more dollars to invest in their local transportation priorities. Voters approved the 0.25% sales tax increase in ten of the 17 counties where it was on the ballot last November. And in Virginia, state legislators in 2014 created a new regional funding mechanism and boosted sales taxes in the state’s two biggest metro areas (Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) explicitly and only for transportation projects.

This growing movement of states taking action to empower local communities and put questions in the hands of the voters was the hot topic at a legislative briefing in the Massachusetts state capitol this morning, sponsored by a host of organizations including Transportation for Massachusetts and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

MA policy breakfast james corless mayor ballard 2

From left, Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, MAPC executive director Marc Draisen, Former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, T4A Director James Corless (speaking), Pioneer Valley Planning Commission executive director Tim Brennan and Kristina Egan from Transportation for Massachusetts at this morning’s breakfast in the MA state capitol.

The briefing was in support of S1474 and H2698, bills in the Massachusetts legislature known as “enabling legislation” that would allow cities, towns or groups of cities new authority to raise one of four different sources of local taxes explicitly for local transportation projects.

Tracking state policy & funding

We are closely tracking this piece of state legislation and scores of others as part of our new resource on state transportation policy & funding. Visit our refreshed state policy bill tracker to see current information about the states attempting to raise new state or local funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent, and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy.

T4America Director James Corless kicked off the discussion speaking to his own experience with ballot measures in California. “There is no better way of rebuilding the transportation brand with voters than asking them to tax themselves for projects and then delivering those projects and making good on that promise,” he explained.

In Indiana, the legislature acted in 2014 to change state law and allow metro Indianapolis counties to have a long-awaited vote on raising income taxes to fund an ambitious new public transportation network built around bus rapid transit.

Former Indy Mayor Greg Ballard, who told the Indy Star that he’d “been to the Statehouse more on [Indy’s enabling legislation] than any other issue,” was shared a local perspective this morning on how important it is for local cities to have more of a hand in deciding their own future and staying competitive.

“This is all about attracting talent…the local option transportation tax is a critical tool for mayors because, let’s face it, mayors know best what their most pressing transportation problems are,” Mayor Ballard said.

“When I became mayor we had one transit line on a map. We had no bigger, regional vision. What our local option tax has done is allow us to think big. So we now want to take seven new transit lines to the voters, and the local option tax made it possible to embrace such an ambitious vision. People used to move for a job now they move for a place – that’s why transportation and quality life is critical to make your economy competitive.”

The leaders of Massachusetts’ cities and towns are eager to put the question to voters. Marc Draisen, executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in the Boston metro area, said, “This bill sets a high bar — you have to let local voters decide on their own future…if they don’t like it, they will reject it.”

And the Mayor of Salem, Kim Driscoll, said that as things stand now without the legislation, it’s an uphill battle for cities like hers to invest in what they most need to stay competitive.

“The ability to connect people to places is critical. But for a place like Salem we simply don’t have the tools to invest in the projects that can make that happen,” she said. “This bill would unlock great ideas in the communities that really want it”

T4America director James Corless reminded everyone that the success of local cities and towns are intrinsic to the state’s economic prosperity.

“The best ideas are coming from cities and towns; empowering communities and promoting innovation is essential to a strong future.”

Updated 5:23 p.m. — WAMC Northeast Public Radio did a story about this morning’s briefing. Read or listen to the story here. An excerpt:

State Senator Ben Downing is sponsoring a bill to enable a community or group of municipalities to enact a tax to finance local transportation projects.

“This is a way to control much more directly how we raise and how we spend money for transportation,” Downing said. “It’s also a way to guarantee that the dollars that are raised will stay in the community where they are raised.”

…Transportation for America Director James Corless says since 2013 10 states have passed similar legislation. “In part they realize Congress is not going to come to their rescue anymore and increasingly even state capitals are broke,” said Corless.

—

This story is part of the work of T4America’s START Network — State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training — for state elected leaders and advocates working on similar state issues.

Find out more and join today.

Tennessee charting a course to make streets more dangerous & hamstring local authority

A bill moving through the Tennessee legislature would severely curtail local control and authority over transportation spending, result in more dangerous streets, and prevent cities and towns of all sizes from investing in the wide range of transportation options that are key to their economic prosperity.

Sidewalks would be useful here on Nolensville Rd, a state highway that’s also a local street through Nolensville, TN southeast of Nashville. A new Tennessee law could prevent state gas tax dollars from being used to add them.

Less than a year after passing a statewide complete streets policy, at least two Tennessee state legislators are spearheading a fairly shocking legislative effort to curtail the flexibility that the state, cities and counties have to invest in the diverse types of transportation options that are demanded by their citizens and supported by scores of state and local elected leaders from across the state.

HB 1650 (with a companion in the Senate), as originally introduced and intended, would entirely ban the use of state gas tax revenue for building any sidewalks (even as part of a larger road project), bike lanes and trails, or other similarly cost-effective and popular projects to help make traveling on foot or by bike safer and more convenient.

But this bill goes further than a restriction on the projects that the Tennessee Department of Transportation plans and builds itself, however.

The bill would also narrowly restrict how a city or county could invest their share of gas tax dollars they receive back from the state. This bill would curtail the freedom and control communities of all sizes currently enjoy to invest these dollars however they choose.

Tracking state policy & funding

This bill is just one of many pieces of state legislation that we are tracking closely as part of our new resource on state transportation policy & funding.

Visit our refreshed state policy bill tracker to see current information about the states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent, and states (like Tennessee) taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy.

The bill has been opposed thus far by TDOT, in part because it would have a dramatic impact on safety and could prevent them from meeting decades-old, basic ADA requirements that require crosswalks and curb ramps and other basic safety and accessibility features — which could also jeopardize future federal funds for the state. While there’s potential for the bill to be amended to address the ADA issue and possibly allow sidewalk construction to some degree, the legislators appear to be intent on preserving the outright restriction of state funds for any on-street or off-street bike lanes or trails.

It’s a misguided attempt to save a state money, but considering that only about one percent of the entire state transportation budget goes to projects that make walking or biking safer or more convenient, it’s akin to trying to save money on your power bill by unplugging a single light bulb while running the AC at 60 degrees all summer.

The kicker is that Tennessee is already a national leader on evaluating proposed projects to find savings (or waste) and maximize the benefits of each dollar. We profiled them as a model to emulate in our recent report on smart state policies other states should consider:

In 2012, the Tennessee DOT (TDOT), in partnership with Smart Growth America, found that many transportation projects in its program could be redesigned to achieve 80-90 percent of benefits for as little as one-tenth of the initial proposed cost. After reviewing just the first five projects, TDOT found a cost savings of over $171 million through right-sizing the scope of work. In one project in Jackson County, TDOT was able to reduce the overall cost from an estimated $65 million to just $340,000 while still achieving the same safety and efficiency outcomes. As a result, TDOT has saved billions of dollars and stretched its limited resources even further (the state’s 21.4 cent per gallon gas tax was last raised in 1993, and the state operates its transportation program on a pay-as-you-go basis).

Check that math again: By re-scoping just one project, TDOT saved over $64 million dollars — equivalent to almost four full years of current state funding for safer streets and sidewalks.

There are indeed savings to be found, but curtailing local control and flexibility and making streets less safe for Tennesseans isn’t the solution.

TDOT’s leaders are already on board with awarding a small fraction of their budget — about half a percent of the state’s budget — to build a well-rounded transportation system, and they see how it supports the economic prosperity of the state and the safety of all citizens.

The state created a new Multimodal Access fund in 2013, which has competitively awarded about $10 million annually (out of a $1.8 billion annual budget) to “fund infrastructure projects that support the transportation needs of transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists by addressing gaps along the state highway network,” according to TDOT.

“Our responsibilities as a transportation agency go far beyond building roads and bridges,” TDOT Commissioner John Schroer said in their release for the 2015 grant awards. “Providing safe access for different modes of transportation ultimately creates a more complete and diverse network for our users. These projects are also extremely cost effective, which allows TDOT to make improvements in more areas across the state.”

The sponsors of the bill appear to be unaware of the potential impacts on public safety, the growing public support for these projects, or the sizable economic benefits these projects can bring. HB 1650 would not only end this small multimodal state grant program that’s supported smart, cost-effective projects (chosen on the merits) from across the state, but would also put an incredible burden on local governments by essentially requiring them to self-fund even the most basic sidewalk components of road-related projects.

Amy Benner, a Knoxville-based bike attorney and board member at Bike Walk Tennessee, talked to Streetsblog last week about the bill.

“Our concern is that it prevents localized communities from doing what they want to with their roadways. The way it’s currently written is going to potentially prevent projects that have already been researched and approved and the communities support and mayors have signed off on from happening.”

It’s shocking to contrast this with other forward-looking places that are scrambling to invest in a wide range of transportation options to grow their economies, attract talent, improve mobility and double down on the unique qualities that makes their cities successful.

Scores of cities are enjoying the economic returns of investing in a broader range of transportation options, whether the bus rapid transit systems in medium-sized cities, the massively successful bikesharing systems in cities large and small, the Cultural Trail in Indianapolis or the inspiring Atlanta Beltline in-town trail network that’s been a boost to the local economy.

It’s incredibly discouraging to see Tennessee legislators trying to turn back the clock by making it harder for the state, cities and counties to build safer streets, kneecapping their ability to stay economically competitive in the process.

It’s a “cure” that will only kill the patient.

—

This story is part of the work of T4America’s START Network — State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training — for state elected leaders and advocates working on similar state issues.

Find out more and join.