Skip to main content

President Obama releases robust final budget; summary included

Today, the White House released President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 (FY17) budget proposal, the final of his presidency. This budget adheres to the $1.07 trillion spending cap that resulted from the bipartisan two-year budget deal agreed to last November. The President’s budget proposal either falls in line with or exceeds FAST Act funding levels, increases transit and rail funding, and funds TIGER (the FAST Act does not authorize the program), among other programs. The budget also calls for the creation of a 21st Century Regions program, a clean communities competitive grant program and funds the President’s 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.

Speaker Ryan (R-WI) has asked congressman to maintain the funding levels agreed to last November, though there are signals that some may seek additional cuts.

Read a more detailed analysis here.

The 1 thing you need to know about President Obama’s clean transportation plan

On February 4, the White House released President Obama’s 21st Century Clean Transportation System plan to be included in his FY2017 budget proposal expected out on February 9. The President asserts that his budget proposal will strengthen the nation’s transportation fund through one-time revenues from business tax reform and a $10 per barrel fee on oil, and make large investments in transit and improve funding for local and regional governments.

“This is a new vision. We’re realistic about near-term prospects in Congress, but we think this can change the debate,” one senior administration official said.

The announcement comes two months after the passage of the 5 year surface transportation bill known as the FAST Act. However, Congressional leaders have not expressed willingness to consider the proposal.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) made this point clear. “President Obama’s proposed $10 per barrel tax on oil is dead on arrival in the House.”

What the plan proposes

The plan includes a wide range of innovative solutions. It would refocus federal investments to reduce congestion, reform the existing transportation formula programs, and invest in competitive programs, including the popular Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. It would also increase investments in mass transit funding by $20 billion annually, provide $2 billion for an autonomous and low-emission vehicle pilot, and add $10 billion per year to reform local and regional transportation programs. The latter would include new discretionary grant programs for regions that lower emissions and better link land use decisions with transportation investments.

To pay for these investments, revenues from a $10 per barrel fee paid by oil companies would be phased in over 5 years. During the development of the FAST Act, Congress was unwilling to even hold a floor vote on increasing transportation user-fees, which hasn’t been raised in over 23 years.

What can other states learn from California’s shift to better measure how streets move people

In 2013, the State of California passed legislation that makes a dramatic change in how the state measures the performance of their streets. Rather than use the traditional level of service (LOS) measure that focuses far too narrowly on moving as many cars as fast as possible — regardless of the context or needs of a street — California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is shifting to an alternative of measuring vehicle-miles traveled (VMT).

In this first post of a six-post series only for T4America members, Transportation for America will walk through the change from LOS to VMT, highlight the opinions of a variety of leaders on this issue and discuss the implications for California’s transportation system and potential implications nationwide.

Reminder, moving away from level of service (LOS) was one of the key recommendations in our new state policy report, released in January 2016. Don't miss that helpful resource.

Note: moving away from level of service (LOS) was one of the key recommendations detailed in our new state policy report, released in January 2016. Don’t miss that helpful resource.

In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 743, eliminating the use of LOS for projects within designated transit priority areas (TPAs). As Streetsblog LA reported in 2013, SB 743 was a compromise between interests who wanted the full elimination of LOS in California and advocates pushing for the full and immediate elimination of LOS as a requirement for any project. But, because most urban areas fall within the state-defined parameters of a TPA, the enactment of SB 743 means that LOS is largely eliminated for urban projects.

Additionally, SB 743 authorized Governor Brown to develop a new way of measuring traffic impacts of major projects statewide and based the new way on total VMT rather than intersection congestion. (1) This will change how development projects are analyzed and scored in traffic impact studies and thus the type of development projects that California supports.

What this means

In short, instead of measuring whether or not a proposed project will make it less convenient to drive, (CalTrans) will now measure whether or not a project contributes to other state goals, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation, preserving open spaces, and promoting diverse land uses and infill development. (2) It is expected that this change will make it easier to build transit projects, as well as bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.

But perhaps a larger change will be the type of development the law now encourages. Instead of encouraging sprawl that goes against California’s own environmental goals, these new guidelines will encourage development that moves California to a more sustainable transportation system. (3)

Status of Draft Guidelines

In August 2014, OPR released draft guidelines proposing to substitute VMT for the LOS metric (as authorized by SB 743). Under the draft guidelines, California no longer considers bad LOS a problem that needs fixing under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (4)

On January 20th 2016, OPR released the final draft of the changes to CEQA. The January 20th release signals the 45-day initial public comment period before finalizing the proposal and submitting to the California Natural Resources Agency to begin the formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act. The regulations are anticipated to be effective statewide in 2019. (5)

Final Guidelines

The final guidelines are very similar to the draft guidelines with only slight changes. In the final proposal, OPR continues to recommend replacing LOS with VMT as the primary metric for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts, including the presumption that projects near transit (1/2 mile or less) should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact and that transportation projects which add lane miles may result in induced vehicle travel. (6) In a big win for smart growth advocates, the guidelines emphasize that effects on automobile delay do not constitute a significant environmental impact. (7)

The new guidelines would remain optional for a two-year period following adoption, but would apply statewide to all development projects by 2019. (8)

Draft Guideline Rules on Impact Analysis

The final guidelines contain significant changes on the types of triggers needed to spur an environmental impact statement. Divided into three categories; land use projects, residential projects and office projects, all triggers are established at below a commonly accepted baseline level. The new proposal attempts to streamline the implemention of SB 743, with recommendations regarding significance thresholds, for required traffic analyses of development projects. (9)

These new threshold guidelines mean that development projects that will significantly increase the amount of automobile traffic that will be required to undergo rigorous environmental impact statements to ensure that they are compliant with California’s statewide greenhouse gas law.

Citations:

  1. Newton, D. and Curry, M. (2014, August 7th). California Has Officially Ditched Car-Centric ‘Level of Service’. LA Streetsblog. Retrieved February 1st from /http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/07/california-has-officially-ditched-car-centric-level-of-service/
  2. Newton, D. (2016, January 22nd). State Releases Proposed Rules That Would Finally End LOS in Enviro. Law. Streetsblog California. Retrieved February 1st from http://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/01/22/state-releases-proposed-rules-that-would-finally-end-los-in-environmental-law/
  3. Ibid 2
  4. Ibid 2
  5. Ibid 3
  6. Lathom and Watkins LLP. (2016, January 26th). California Governor’s Office Releases Updated CEQA Guidelines Proposal on SB 743 Implementation. Retreived 2016/2/01 from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b070fa40-a4ff-4ce1-a6db-f2bd104cce31
  7. Ibid 5
  8. Ibid 5
  9. Ibid 5

Alabama DOT out-of-step with metro business leaders on economic development

A coalition of business and local leaders in Birmingham, AL are pushing back against the state’s plans to widen an interstate through downtown, advocating instead for a more up-to-date approach to economic development for the revitalizing downtown core.

A story earlier this week caught our eye and iIllustrates how state departments of transportation can often be out-of-touch with the diverse transportation needs of local communities and cities. From the Over the Mountain Journal:

Downtown Birmingham has many prominent features and landmarks. The recently renovated Lyric Fine Arts Theatre, the Birmingham Museum of Art and the McWane Science Center are just a few attractions drawing people in. But there is one feature many area business leaders find worrisome: the Interstate 20/59 corridor cutting through downtown. The Alabama Department of Transportation is moving forward with plans to reconfigure and widen the interstate. Civic leaders believe the plan will have long-term, detrimental effects on the city.

birmingham google maps

Interstate 59 and Interstate 20 merge together on the east side of downtown Birmingham and, similar to post-war road designs in scores of other U.S. cities, cut a path through the heart of downtown Birmingham, with part of that route in the form of a 1.3-mile elevated viaduct.

Just like many of those other cities, Birmingham has also experienced a rebirth of downtown in the last decade, with $728 million “in 32 downtown projects under construction or recently completed,” according to Business Alabama. More residents are now moving in than moving out (changing a decades-long trend), and thousands of new housing units have been added. A quarter of the region’s jobs are located downtown, public investments have spurred millions in private investments, and the city enjoys the presence of a growing state university campus (U. of Alabama at Birmingham) just south of downtown.

birmingham 20:59 viaduct

Yet, many city leaders and residents have pointed to the aging viaduct as a barrier to the potential economic growth percolating downtown. After ALDOT’s repair plan for the aging viaduct morphed into a much larger plan to replace and widen it, the City of Birmingham commissioned the firm that helped produce their 2013 comprehensive plan to produce an alternative study. “Participants during the comprehensive planning project identified the I-20/59 viaduct as a barrier to full revitalization of downtown and adjacent Northside neighborhoods,” it read.

The coalition of local business and civic leaders speaking out against the project — including the former head of the state’s third largest private company — believe that not only should Birmingham have more of a say in their own future, but that a better plan created in collaboration with city leaders could do a better job of boosting the city’s economic competitiveness, which is also in the state’s interest. The Over the Mountain Journal piece continues:

F. Dixon Brooke Jr., former president and CEO of EBSCO, and nearly a dozen other business and community leaders are asking ALDOT to look at alternatives. Brooke said the current layout of the interstate has hurt Birmingham’s revitalization. “It has proven to be dividing the city for years. It has limited quality of life and the ability to revitalize,” Brooke said.

Those leaders are hopeful, and they crave a more transparent process that incorporates goals other than moving cars through the city.

“I need ALDOT to exhibit genuine interest in collaborating and consider alternatives. They feel they’ve looked at all options because they think this is the best one, but I’m not convinced. We want an open, honest collaborative view.” He said he isn’t looking for a fight, he is just asking for transparency. “At the end of the day we may look at everything and see there just isn’t a better way to do it,” Brooke said.

While their complaints so far have been tabled by the Alabama DOT, it will be an interesting case to watch.

It’s yet one more sign of a growing coalition of local business, elected, and civic leaders in similar midsize cities across the country pushing for a smarter approach to transportation investment and a break from the past conventional wisdom.

How many states will try to do something different in 2016?

With Congress finally wrapping up their five-year transportation bill in late 2015, the spotlight will burn even brighter on states in 2016. With 40 state legislatures now in session and six more set to begin in the coming weeks, how many states will raise new funding? How many states will attempt to improve how they spend their transportation dollars? How many will take unfortunate steps backwards?

State Policy Report Jan 2016 featured graphicAs we highlighted in our most recent report that contained 12 recommendations for bringing state transportation policy out of the stone age, these state legislators will face the most critical of choices: continue pumping scarce dollars into a complex and opaque system designed to spend funds based more on politics than needs, or find a new approach that will boost state and local economies and restore taxpayer confidence in a broken system.

Here’s a short roundup of some of the states and bills that we’ll be watching.

Increases in funding on the horizon?

Louisiana’s new governor, John Bel Edwards (D), and a new legislature have highlighted transportation as a priority issue. Edwards’ transition team recommended a big ramp up in spending for transportation projects — and especially on rail, transit, freight and other key, non-highway projects that have long been neglected. The transition team also recommended that — to make those projects possible — the state will need to move ahead on staffing and setting up the new office of multimodal commerce created by the legislature in 2014 as a way to reform the Department of Transportation and Development and broaden the state’s transportation focus. A special legislative session on the state budget begins in mid-February. Transportation is unlikely to be included in this session, but legislators will be laying the groundwork for raising new funding in a later session or next year.

Following years of unsuccessful efforts, Missouri’s legislature is again looking for ways to raise new state revenue for transportation. A voter initiative in 2014 was defeated in part because it would have taxed metropolitan areas most heavily but not given cities the autonomy to spend these funds on their most pressing transportation needs. To get support for new funding — several bills have been introduced already this year — legislators will likely need to reform the way funds are distributed and spent, but few reforms have been offered.

A special transportation finance panel called by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) recommended multiple sources of financing to fund the state’s long list of repair needs and planned projects. But it called for the state to first implement several reforms, including setting aside fuel tax and toll revenues exclusively for transportation projects and for enabling new local or regional funding options to allow alternative funding for local priorities.

Colorado’s legislature is fielding a slew of calls for new ways to get more money to transportation projects. Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has called for a tax swap that would allow the state to spend existing revenue on transportation projects. Some transportation advocates have called for general obligation bonds, shifting money now used for road repair to pay for new projects, or a statewide ballot measure to increase revenue for transportation.

After months of publicly calling for state legislators to boost state transportation funding and barnstorming the state to make his case, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has pushed the issue off the agenda until 2017. The call for new revenue got a chilly reception with state legislators, including leaders in Haslam’s own party. Fortunately, as we highlight in our report from two weeks ago, Tennessee’s DOT is already a leader in finding cost-effective solutions and saving state money by right-sizing their projects — keys to building trust and ensuring voters that any new money down the road will be well-spent.

New local funding

Local communities want and need to put their own skin in the game, and states should enable them to do so. Far too many states restrict the ability for locals to tax themselves to raise their own funds for transportation, but scores of other states are looking for ways to enable local communities to raise their own dollars for their most pressing needs.

A bill was introduced in Massachusetts by START Network member Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham) to allow cities and towns to impose a payroll, sales, property, or vehicle excise tax to fund local transportation projects, including repair and new construction of streets, bridges, transit, and pedestrian or bike infrastructure. A bill in Wisconsin allows counties or municipalities to impose a temporary, 0.5-percent sales tax to raise money exclusively for street and highway repair. Both bills would require the new taxes to be approved by the local government and a voter referendum.

A 2013 transportation funding bill in Virginia added extra fuel and sales taxes for the state’s most populous urban regions of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to help them meet the large, complicated transportation demands. Two bills introduced this year add a new floor to the local supplemental tax equal to the amount that would have been charged in February 2013, already in place for the statewide wholesale rate, and increase the wholesale rate for the Hampton Roads region from 2.1-percent to 5.3-percent.

Measuring performance

Last month, Virginia Department of Transportation released its first list of projects scored and ranked to receive funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. This program is the result of a dogged focus by legislative leaders and the administration of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to reform the state’s transportation program. START members and other local leaders have had positive feedback thus far for the new system intended to increase transparency and public understanding of transportation investments by objectively screening and scoring transportation projects based on their anticipated benefits.

Massachusetts is in the midst of implementing a similar program that was created as part of the 2013 transportation funding package.

Moving backward

While legislators in many states are looking for ways to meet diverse transportation needs, some legislators are leading efforts to entrench systems that fund highways only. A bill passed out of Colorado’s Senate Transportation committee would eliminate $15 million in state money directed to transit from a 2009 funding bill. A bill in Tennessee would limit state transportation funds, including those distributed to cities and counties, exclusively for highways and bridges.

12 transportation policies states should consider in 2016 to stay economically competitive

To remain economically competitive, states must invest in infrastructure, but state legislatures have a critical choice ahead of them: continue pumping scarce dollars into a complex and opaque system based on outdated policies out of sync with today’s needs, or follow the lead of the states highlighted in Transportation for America’s new report, Twelve Innovations in Transportation Policy States Should Consider in 2016.

State legislatures, as incubators of innovation and more flexible than Congress when it comes to enacting new transportation policies, have a golden opportunity in 2016 to reform their transportation programs to expand transparency and accountability, boost state and local economies, invest in innovation across the state, save the state money and improve safety for the traveling public.

Why this focus on state transportation policy?

Similar to Congress’s action in 2015 with the passage of the FAST Act, most of the 23 states that increased their own transportation funding revenue since 2012 have failed to update the underlying policies governing the spending of those new funds. The distribution formulas for those funds are often relics of decades-old priorities that are out-of-touch with the new needs of increasingly diverse economies and demographics.

T4America’s new report outlines 12 transportation policy solutions recently passed legislatively or instituted through administrative action in states, many of which are being pursued by Transportation for America’s START network members and other key policymakers in 2016.

These dozen policy proposals have shown the ability to:

  • increase accountability and transparency to build taxpayer confidence;
  • make states economically competitive and empower locals to do the same;
  • invest in innovation and reward the smartest projects;
  • maximize savings through better project development; and
  • improve safety through better street design

Considering the fact that the federal program is still largely a block grant given to and controlled by the states, state leadership on transportation issues will be more important than ever in the years to come.

The START Network

T4America supports efforts to produce and pass state legislation to increase transportation funding, advance innovation and policy reform, empower local leaders and ensure accountability and transparency. We do this through our State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training (START) Network of state and local elected officials, advocates and civic leaders, providing our members easily accessible resources that arm decision makers and advocates with template policies, research and case studies from leaders nationwide. Join the START network today, and share with us any bills in your state legislature that you feel we should be tracking here.

State-level reform will be essential for advancing creative and innovative transportation funding and policy reforms to make the most of limited infrastructure dollars. Get engaged by joining the START Network and get your free copy of the report today.

Virginia launches program to remove politics from transportation investment decisions

This week Virginia DOT released a list of recommended projects across the state, the result of a new process to objectively screen and score transportation projects based on their anticipated benefits.

It may not sound like big news that a state has carefully measured the results it expects from billions of dollars in capital investments. Unfortunately, nearly all states rely instead on byzantine funding formulas and decades-old project lists, rather than measurable return-on-investment, to award funds for highway and transit projects. That means that this common sense change is a big one for the transportation system.

“This new law [HB 2 passed in 2014] is revolutionizing the way transportation projects are selected,” said Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) in a statement on the release of the project scoring results. “Political wish lists of the past are replaced with a data-driven process that is objective and transparent, making the best use of renewed state funding.”

hb2 project apps

Fiscal year 2017 project applications and results of the analysis are mapped by location on the HB2 projects page.

It is not just the selection process itself that is novel; Virginia is also opening up its process to public review in a way that few states have. With its consumer-friendly website, virginiahb2.org, the DOT explains the process, eligible projects, and scoring factors used in ranking projects. This week, the list of recommended projects and their scores were also put online. The public will have opportunities to weigh in on the recommended projects before the final project list is approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in June.

Some of the top projects, based on total benefits, were adding high occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes along the I-66 corridor in Fairfax County; widening I-64 in Hampton Roads; extending Virginia Railway Express commuter rail service to Haymarket; and adding a second entrance to the Ballston Metro station. The number-one ranked project—the project with the greatest benefit per cost—is a small, locally requested road improvement project at the elementary school in the town of Altavista.

The new objective scoring process is the result of key reform bills passed by the general assembly: HB2, passed unanimously by the general assembly in 2014 and HB1887 passed last year. These bills instructed VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board to create a new process to rank projects of all types, in each region of the state, on five key measures: economic development, safety, accessibility, congestion mitigation, and environmental impact. State funds are awarded to both statewide priorities and local needs that have the highest measurable benefits. We cover both bills in more detail in two Capital Ideas reports.

“We must ensure that every step we take is measured by its return on investment,” said House Speaker William Howell in 2013 prior to HB 2’s introduction. “Resources are too scarce and taxpayer dollars too precious to be thrown away on poorly planned transportation projects. Projects should have clearly defined goals and metrics that can be measured in an objective fashion. A ‘good idea’ is not good enough anymore.”

Virginia’s new process is part of a growing trend. As legislators throughout the country look for ways to get the maximum benefit out of ever-more-limited transportation funds and build trust and accountability in the way the dollars are spent, many are looking to new ways to measure project benefits and prioritize needs. Massachusetts’ Project Selection Advisory Council is developing a new process for ranking projects in that state. Louisiana and Texas each passed new laws last year to add score and select transportation projects.

Virginia’s political leadership deserves great credit for taking on this common sense reform and placing the public benefit in front of short-term political gains.

Join us next week for an online discussion about “Buses Mean Business”

Last week, Transportation for America and Smart Growth America’s transit-oriented development initiative hosted the public launch of new research about bus rapid transit (BRT) lines and their potential for economic development, and next week, we’re inviting all of you to join us for an online presentation of the findings.

The National Study of BRT Development Outcomes, authored by Arthur C. (“Chris”) Nelson and published by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities at Portland State University, was publicly released on Tuesday, January 12 at a live event in Washington, DC.

This new peer-reviewed research provides compelling evidence that BRT systems in the U.S. can indeed generate economic development, attract jobs, retail and affordable housing — at a cost that’s well within reach for many mid-size American cities.

So many people have expressed interest in this research that we’re holding an online version of the kickoff event. Join us on Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:30pm EST to learn all the details of this new research from the report’s author, as well as what this means for communities considering a BRT line.

brt-online-discussion

All across the U.S., interest in BRT is booming as a smart, more affordable transit option. As of today, more than 30 U.S. regions in at least 24 states are either building or actively considering building new bus rapid transit lines in 2016 and beyond. The new study looks at what these projects could mean for development patterns, housing affordability, and employment and wages in those areas.

Next week’s webinar is a chance to hear all the details of this new research, as well as ask your questions of the report’s author. We’ll be taking questions during the event, as well as on Twitter at the hashtag #BusesMeanBusiness. Register to join us next week — we look forward to talking with you.

Congress permanently increases commuter tax benefit for transit riders

After years of effort from T4America, the Association for Commuter Transportation and scores of others, in late 2015, Congress finally raised the pre-tax benefit that can be claimed for commuting via transit, permanently equalizing that fringe tax benefit with the benefit for parking expenses.

This news got a little buried in the wake of the passage of the Fast Act, the new five-year transportation bill, but it’s an important change that will have notable impacts on how people choose to commute.

A provision in the annual spending and tax extender package, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama at the end of 2015, permanently establishes tax parity between drivers and transit riders. This means transit, vanpool, and parking will all receive pre-tax commuter benefit deductions of $255 a month in 2016. Though the benefit for transit riders had been temporarily increased to match parking benefits several times over the last few years, for most of the last decade, the value of the transit benefit was around half the value of the parking benefit — effectively putting a thumb on the scale for millions of people making a choice of how they’d like to commute.

These stacked financial incentives surely had an impact on commuting decisions, adding more congestion to roads and hurting low- and middle-income taxpayers in particular — people more likely to depend on transit, but under the former setup, receiving less tax benefits to do so.

As a longstanding and vocal advocate for permanently making these benefit equal and providing benefits to commuters, no matter how they choose to commute, Transportation for America celebrates this moment for commuters and for the positive impacts that it could have in communities across the country through increased transit ridership and cost savings.

New study finds positive economic development benefits associated with bus rapid transit projects

Today T4America unveiled the findings of a new peer-reviewed study that examined existing bus rapid transit (BRT) lines and found strong evidence that BRT systems in the U.S. can indeed generate economic development, attract jobs, retail and affordable housing — at a cost that’s well within reach for many mid-size American cities.

Bus rapid transit is a type of bus service that travels faster and more reliably by providing level boarding, triggering traffic signals, providing pre-board fare payment and running in dedicated lanes separated from traffic, among other typical characteristics. For the first time, a new peer-reviewed research study, unveiled this morning, provides compelling evidence that BRT — often with a price tag far lower than other transit investments — can provide ample economic benefits for cities large and small.

The study, authored by Arthur C. (Chris) Nelson and published by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) at Portland State University, was publicly released this morning in an event held by Transportation for America, Smart Growth America’s TOD Technical Assistance Initiative and NITC.

Interested in learning more? Couldn’t make our in-person event today in Washington, DC? We’ll be going over the findings in detail again in an online presentation on Monday, January 25, at 3:30 Eastern time. It’s free and open to all, so register today. 

All across the US, interest in bus rapid transit is booming as a smart, more affordable transit option. According to data gathered by Yonah Freemark and Steven Vance for Transit Explorer, more than 30 U.S. regions in at least 24 states are either building or actively considering building new bus rapid transit lines in 2016 and beyond.

Bus rapid transit coming soon graphic map

But there have been notable gaps in the research on the possible benefits — until now.

What does the study have to say about the economic benefits of BRT?

BRT encourages new office growth in locations connected to transit.

The areas within a half-mile of BRT corridors increased their share of new office space by one third from 2000-2007, and new multifamily apartment construction doubled in those half-mile areas since 2008. For most areas studied, there was a rent premium for office space within a BRT corridor.

BRT corridors fared better than other areas after the recession.

During the economic recovery following the 2008 recession, these corridors also increased their share of office space by one third, and more higher-wage job growth occurred near BRT stations than occurred in central counties. During the economic recovery, BRT station areas saw the largest positive shift in the share of upper-wage jobs, and employment in the manufacturing sector increased.

“Unlike the presumptions of some, bus rapid transit systems have important effects on metropolitan development patterns,” report author Dr. Arthur C. Nelson said in the study. “At substantially lower costs, BRT generates important and sometimes impressive development outcomes.”

To that end, Mayor Gregory Ballard, the recently departed Mayor of Indianapolis and a guest speaker at this morning’s event, noted that a new bus rapid transit network is one of his city’s primary economic competitiveness strategies.

“170,000 employees work within walking distance of our planned Red Line bus rapid transit service — one out of every five employees in the region,” Mayor Ballard said. “We have existing bus service, but it doesn’t go to where the existing jobs are. Providing a way to connect more people to more jobs in the region via a lower-cost, fast, flexible transportation option like bus rapid transit is a smart economic move to ensure that our growing region prospers for years to come.”

At the event, the Hon. Chris Zimmerman, Vice President for Economic Development at Smart Growth America, referenced work that Smart Growth America performed to quantify those potential economic benefits.

“A fiscal analysis we conducted for Indianapolis showed substantial benefits in terms of municipal revenues and costs if future development could be attracted to areas around their new bus rapid transit stations,” Zimmerman said. “It’s this kind of potential that is generating increasing interest in BRT, especially in mid-size cities.” Zimmerman directs the National Public Transportation/Transit-Oriented Development Technical Assistance initiative which Smart Growth America is leading in partnerships with the Federal Transit Administration.

The Hon. John Robert Smith, Transportation for America Advisory Board Chair, noted that Indianapolis is far from alone, supporting Dr. Nelson’s assertion that BRT could represent a large share of new high-quality transit investment for the next few decades.

“These findings are an affirmation for the scores of other can-do regions that bus rapid transit is a smart investment that can indeed bring tangible economic returns. The mayors and other elected officials I meet with on a regular basis are intensely concerned with connecting their residents to jobs, and evidence like this will bolster their efforts to use BRT as a tool to do so,” Smith added.

The full study can be downloaded here.

—-

The study was published by the National Institute of Transportation and Communities at Portland State University and was funded partially through a grant from Transportation for America. Dr. Nelson, who began the study at the University of Utah’s Metropolitan Research Center, is currently Professor of Planning & Real Estate Development at the University of Arizona.

SGA’s TOD Technical Assistance Initiative is made possible through support from the Federal Transit Administration.

Seven metropolitan areas selected to participate in yearlong transportation training academy

Continuing T4America’s dedication to cultivating local transportation expertise and knowledge, we’re proud to announce the selection of seven local groups of metropolitan leaders to participate in a new yearlong training academy focused on performance measurement to better assess the impacts and benefits of transportation spending.

This 2016 Transportation Leadership Academy is the second such training program for local leaders created by T4America in as many years. (Our first academy was created in partnership with TransitCenter in 2015. -Ed.)

What is performance measurement?

Performance measurement — more carefully measuring and quantifying the multiple benefits of transportation spending decisions to ensure that every dollar is aligned with the public’s goals and brings the greatest return possible for citizens — is an emerging practice that forward-looking metropolitan areas of all sizes are beginning to use.

The transportation law passed in 2012 (MAP-21) created a nascent system for states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure the performance of their investments against federally-required measures. Some metro areas were doing this for years before MAP-21 passed; others are now trying to determine how to incorporate this new system into their process of creating plans, selecting projects, and measuring the effectiveness of each transportation dollar that gets spent. This yearlong training program will provide these local leaders with tools and support for this endeavor.

The academy is particularly timely considering that the U.S. Department of Transportation is working to finalize a new set of transportation performance measure procedures and regulations — possibly as soon as this year — which we’ve been writing about here regularly.

Why performance measures?

“It’s never easy to raise money to invest in transportation, and more than ever before, citizens want to know how the decisions are being made to spend their money,” said Transportation for America Director James Corless in our press release today. “A more accountable system that sets tangible goals with input from the community, chooses transportation projects that will help the community meet those goals, and then measures the outcomes in a feedback loop will be essential to rebuild public confidence in transportation agencies and for ensuring that we get the best bang for the buck going forward,” Corless said.

This program, created in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), will educate these seven teams made up of local business, civic, elected leaders, and transportation professionals, prepare them to act on opportunities within their communities and plug them into a dynamic national network of like-minded leaders throughout the country.

The yearlong academy will consist of in-person workshops with participants from all seven regions — Boston, MA; Cleveland, OH; Des Moines, IA; Indianapolis, IN; Lee County, FL; Seattle, WA; and South Bend, IN — ongoing technical assistance throughout the year, regular online training sessions, and expert analysis of their plans and progress on deploying performance measures.

What the participants had to say

“The benefit of being selected for this is program allows Central Indiana to have access to best practices in the industry as they’re being developed,” said Anna Gremling, executive director of the Indianapolis MPO, in their official release today. “Our team will use what we learn through this process to assist in the development of the 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan that will begin in mid-2016.”

“This is the future of transportation in an era of aging infrastructure and limited revenue – continually measuring the performance of the transportation network to ensure we’re making the smartest investments possible,” Des Moines Area MPO Executive Director Todd Ashby said. “We are thrilled to be included in cutting-edge thinking on the best practices in this field.”

“Our entire team is honored to be selected by Transportation for America for this first-ever transportation leadership program, particularly with groups from such a diverse cross-section of the country,” said Brian Hamman, Lee County Commissioner and Chairman of the Lee County MPO. “The knowledge this team will gain, and the national network we’ll create with other forward-thinking leaders, will serve Lee County’s transportation efforts well into the future.”

Buses Mean Business: New evidence supporting economic benefits of bus rapid transit

buses mean business

For those of you in the DC area next week (including those of you planning to attend the Transportation Research Board conference), join us on Tuesday for the national release of a new academic study on the economic benefits resulting from smart investments in bus rapid transit.

Join us next week on Tuesday, January 12th at 10:30 a.m. inside the Carnegie Library across from the DC convention center to hear from the report authors and other notable speakers.

Buses, you say? All across the US, interest in bus rapid transit (BRT) is booming as a smart, more affordable transit option. For the first time, a new peer-reviewed research study provides compelling evidence that BRT systems in the U.S. can generate economic development, attract jobs, retail and affordable housing — at a cost that’s well within reach for many mid-sized American cities. Join us as we help unveil the results of this new study outlining the potential economic returns of BRT investments, plus a firsthand explanation from the former Mayor of Indianapolis on why his city is banking on a brand new bus rapid transit network as one of the city’s primary economic competitiveness strategies.

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016
10:30 a.m. – 12 p.m.
The L’Enfant Map Room, Carnegie Library
801 K Street NW, Washington, DC
(Immediately south of DC convention center)

or contact Alicia Orosco: alicia.orosco@t4america.org

Join us on social media to talk about the findings, whether you’re attending in person next Tuesday or checking back here to read the full report on Tuesday. Is your city planning a new bus rapid transit line or system?

#BusesMeanBusiness

Hosted by:

  • The Hon. John Robert Smith, Advisory Board Chair, Transportation for America & Senior Policy Advisor, Smart Growth America
  • The Hon. Gregory Ballard, Former Mayor, Indianapolis, IN, and Advisory Board Member, Transportation for America
  • (Study author) Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D, FAICP, Professor of Planning & Real Estate Development, University of Arizona
  • The Hon. Christopher Zimmerman, Vice President for Economic Development, Smart Growth America

Can’t make the meeting?

Help us spread the word about the event and the new study (which you’ll be able to read next week). Use the hashtag #BusesMeanBusiness and share the event on Twitter (link below), Facebook, and other social networks.

share on twitter

Sponsored by Transportation for America, Smart Growth America’s TOD Technical Assistance Initiative and the National Institute for Transportation and Communities.

SGA’s TOD Technical Assistance Initiative is made possible through support from the Federal Transit Administration.

Eugene EMX Bus rapid transit

12 states successfully raised new transportation funding in 2015 — what can other states learn?

The second issue of Transportation for America’s “Capital Ideas” series, released today, takes a closer look at the states that passed new transportation funding and policy legislation in 2015, distilling it all into some notable trends, lessons learned, challenges, and recommendations for other states planning similar action in 2016.

After years of inactivity on the issue, transportation funding has increasingly become a priority in states both red and blue. 2015 was a high water mark for the number of states successfully raising new funding, boasting successful increases in 12 states, bringing the total to 23 since 2012.

Along with a big-picture overview of all the states that were successful this year, this short report takes a closer look at a state that passed one of the better overall bills (Utah), a state that suffered a defeat on the way to a final package that failed to fundamentally improve policy or solve the revenue question (Michigan), and a state that passed another round of policy reforms to build voter trust and accountability following an increase in new transportation funds in 2013 (Virginia).

Through the successes (and failures) of 2015, we pull together some practical lessons and challenges for the other states hoping to take up the issue in 2016 or 2017, like showing why instituting reforms to boost public confidence can increase the likelihood of success, why indexing fuel taxes to inflation still isn’t a long-term solution, and why states should still find ways to fund all of the diverse needs in their states — not just highways. (Something that not enough states managed to do this year.)

Many states have an uphill challenge on that last point: did you know that almost half (23) of U.S. states have constitutional restrictions on their fuel taxes that restrict their use to roads or highways only? Those are the kinds of nuggets you can expect in Capital Ideas II.

While 2016 may not be quite as active as 2015 was due to a busy election year ahead, this trend will not abate anytime soon.

Even though Congress did finally pass a five-year bill this year, states are unlikely to stand pat on transportation funding. Years of dwindling federal funding and lost revenues due to arcane, static, and declining gas taxes have left states struggling to balance their budgets, and unlike Congress did recently, states can’t sell future oil reserves, raid the Fed or rely on accounting gimmicks to cover their costs — they have to find real money.

Read the report in full online and stay tuned as we bring you more news about T4America’s work in states in 2016. While we made our name and earned our stripes working at the federal level since our inception more than six years ago, we’ve been doing more work at the state and local level, and we’re eager to tell you more about it in the months ahead.

2,100 letters delivered to FHWA in support of easing restrictive street design regulations

Earlier this week, with our partners at the National Complete Streets Coalition, we delivered nearly 2,100 letters to FHWA supporting their proposal to ease the onerous federal design standards that make it needlessly difficult for local communities to build safer, more complete streets.

Complete Streets director Emiko Atherton

National Complete Streets Coalition director Emiko Atherton on her way to FHWA in Washington, DC earlier this week.

It was an incredibly encouraging move by FHWA, and thanks to many of you who sent in one of the nearly 2,100 letters, FHWA will hear the message loud and clear that this move has broad support.

In case you missed the news back in November, FHWA made an encouraging proposal to scrap 11 outdated provisions in the current design criteria that local communities and states must adhere to when building or reconstructing certain roads with speed limits under 50 mph — adhere to, or go through an arduous process of requesting an exception from FHWA to do things like line a downtown street with street trees, reduce the width of lanes to add a bike lane, or curve a street slightly to slow traffic and make it safer for people in cars and on foot.

Communities of all sizes are eager to capitalize on their streets as economic assets and boost the bottom line by making them safe and attractive for everyone to use them. Under these current design guidelines for federal-aid roads, communities might adhere to out-of-date FHWA regs rather than fight for exceptions that can delay a project or even increase the cost.

Along with Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition, we rallied our networks to show support for this welcome change. And earlier this week, National Complete Streets Director Emiko Atherton personally delivered all of your letters to the U.S. Department of Transportation — trying not to fall over while balancing the 15-pound stack along the way.

The overwhelming support for the proposed rule demonstrates the groundswell of bottom-up, grassroots support for designing safer, more complete streets. We hope FHWA will take note by moving ahead with adopting the rule as it stands and making no modifications.

Thank you to all who submitted a letter of support, we look forward to keeping you updated in early 2016 with the latest developments.

fhwa design guidlines thank you

Help make TIGER roar in this year’s budget

With the multi-year transportation bill is behind us, Congress is currently considering an annual transportation spending bill with $600 million for the competitive TIGER grant program — an increase of $100 million over existing funding amounts. We need to support it this week as Congress finalizes a new budget to carry us into next year.

The incredibly popular TIGER grant program is one of the only ways that local communities like yours can apply for and win funds from the federal government for important priority projects of almost any kind, helping to get the best locally-supported projects with a high return on investment off the ground. Because it was not permanently authorized in the FAST Act, TIGER is subject to budget battles each year, and this year is no different.

Can you urge your representatives in Congress to pass an appropriations bill with the proposed $600 million in TIGER grant funding, in addition to preserving other key transportation programs?

Whether for new multimodal passenger rail stations in Normal and Alton, Illinois to take advantage of improved passenger rail connections between Chicago and St. Louis, an overhaul of the downtown street network in Dubuque, IA to expand the tax base by $77 million, or an improvement to the West Memphis port to boost cargo capacity by 2,000 percent with only a $10.9 million award, the competitive TIGER program ensures the best projects receive funds, and provides a level of accountability and transparency not currently available in many statewide transportation programs.

In just the past few years, the House has proposed to cut TIGER funding entirely or add restrictions so that transit, bike and pedestrian and multimodal projects can’t apply — only highway projects. This year, the Senate is proposing to keep the program unchanged and add $100 million in funding (the most recent round had $500 million), while the House proposed to slash it to just $100 million.

In addition to TIGER funding, we’re supporting more funding for new transit construction and the Senate levels for Amtrak funding. Communities all over the country are clamoring to expand transit and passenger rail service to meet booming demand and it’s not the time to reduce funding for those programs.

We are counting on your vocal support to ensure that Congress protect and preserve funding that local communities count on in this spending bill to keep the government open and functioning past this Friday.

Send a message to your members of Congress today and let them know that these issues matter to you and your community.

ICYMI: US DOT’s Smart City Challenge kicks off; T4A breaks it down for members

On December 7, 2015, US DOT launched their new opportunity, the Smart City Challenge. This new grant opportunity is a competition intended primarily for mid-size cities, but cities of all sizes may apply. The program is a 3-year program designed to

  • Encourage cities to put forward their best and most creative ideas for innovation and addressing challenges they face, and
  • Address how emerging transportation data, technologies, and applications can be integrated with existing systems, and how these ITS technologies and approaches reduce, congestions, safety for travelers, protect the environment, respond to climate change, connect underserved communities and support economic vitality.

The Smart City Challenge has two phases:

Phase 1 supports concept development and planning activities and requires a 30-page application. Each of the 5 finalist cities selected will receive $100,000 to help them with their final application.

Phase 2 supports the implementation of the finalist city’s proposed demonstration. The winner of this phase will receive $50 million to implement their winning plan.

Critical Deadlines:

February 4, 2016 @ 3PM – First-round application due through grants.gov

March 2016 – 5 Smart City Challenge finalists announced and USDOT solicits applications from the finalists for Smart City Challenge implementation application

May 2016 – Second-round applications due from finalists

June 2016 – Smart City Challenge implementation awardee announced

What is US DOT looking for when selecting cities for the Smart City Challenge?

US DOT is looking for cities with a municipal population of between 200,000 and 850,000, based on the current US Census; has the density of a typical urban population; and, represents a significant proportion of its regional population (more than 15%).  In addition, US DOT is looking for an environment conducive to the demonstration of advanced technologies (including a commitment to making data open), a commitment to integrating transportation services with the sharing economy, and has an existing public transportation system.

US DOT’s highest priority with respect to technology elements includes urban automation; connected vehicles; and intelligent, sensor-based infrastructure. The Second level priority includes innovative approaches to urban transportation elements, urban analytics, user-focused mobility services, urban delivery/logistics, strategic business, models/partnering, smart grid, roadway electrification & EVs, and connected citizens. Finally are the Smart City elements. These include architect and standards, smart land use, low cost, efficient secure and resilient ICT.

US DOT will evaluate applications based on the following technical merit criteria, which are also contained in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO):

  • Degree that the proposed city and demonstration site align with the USDOT’s Desired Characteristics, relevant to: (i) population size, (ii) population density, (iii) population share of urbanized area; (iv) an existing public transportation system, (v) environment conducive to demonstrating proposed strategies; and (vi) continuity of committed leadership and capacity to carry out the demonstration throughout the period of performance, (vii) commitment to integrating with the sharing economy; and (viii) commitment to making open, machine-readable data accessible, discoverable and usable by the public to fuel entrepreneurship and innovation.
  • Demonstration of a sound, innovative, integrated, and holistic vision of the applicant’s Smart City program consistent with the USDOT’s goals and twelve vision elements as defined in Section A.
  • Extent that the applicant’s vision and goals address issues identified in Beyond Traffic 2045.
  • Likelihood of success in implementing the demonstration, including commitment from public and private sectors, and technical capability to perform.
  • The Government will then select the estimated five applications that are considered the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation of technical merit.

US DOT will conduct several outreach sessions to inform interested parties about the Smart City Challenge, they include an in-person forum on 12/15/15 @ USDOT, as well as several webcasts on specific aspects of the competition.

Congress’ FAST Act provides needed funding certainty but fails to move the country forward

press release

After the House and Senate took action to approve the final five-year, $305 billion Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act transportation authorization this week, T4America director James Corless offered this statement:

“We’re grateful that Congress finally moved beyond short-term extensions and passed a five-year transportation bill with funding to provide the multi-year certainty states and cities have been clamoring for to bring their ambitious plans to life. The bill provides modest increases in funding for local communities, includes passenger rail in the surface authorization for the first time ever — recognizing its key role in connecting communities big and small — and makes it easier for cities and towns to apply for low-cost federal financing for locally-driven infrastructure improvements and transit-oriented development.

“While this new law does make a handful of notable improvements, the final product misses the mark on far too many counts and overall doubles down on a status quo approach to investing in transportation.

“The majority of our elected representatives, along with most of the traditional transportation industry, were all too willing to pass a bill at almost any cost. Only a handful of elected leaders were willing to even discuss raising or indexing the gasoline tax to pay for the level of investment our country desperately needs.

“When it comes to policy, this bill falls far short of the transformational, outcome-based approach needed to keep our cities and towns prospering as our nation experiences profound shifts in demographics, consumer preferences and technology.

“The FAST Act fails to increase transparency and accountability in the process of picking transportation projects; a process that the taxpaying public finds murky, mysterious, and overly political. Though it does slightly increase funding directly to metropolitan areas, it failed to give smaller communities any more control over federal funding. It doesn’t increase the amount of money awarded competitively to the best projects on the merits and makes an enormous cut to the innovative TIFIA low-cost financing program for local projects. And though daily headlines are filled with an increasing number of stories about autonomous vehicles or shared mobility services changing the landscape of our cities, this bill is virtually silent on both counts.

“While states and metropolitan regions will enjoy the certainty of funding that they’ve not had in seven or eight years, they’ll be stuck with yesterday’s policies until 2020, and the tab will be passed on to our children. The FAST Act represents a major missed opportunity to do something much better that the country needs and deserves.”

Think FAST – the good, the bad and the ugly in Congress’ new five-year transportation bill

For the first time in a decade, Congress is on the cusp of passing a five-year transportation authorization bill that will carry us into the next decade. Though we await final floor votes and the President’s signature, it will almost certainly be approved in a matter of days. So how does the bill stack up against the pressing needs of our country? Here’s the good, the bad, and the ugly of the FAST Act.

While the final bill has changed only slightly from the separate versions passed by the House and the Senate since July, we’re going to take a slightly different tack than our usual “ten things you need to know,” and break this bill up into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

T4America members can find a link to our full detailed memo with funding tables below,

[member_content]

Read and download the full members-only summary of the five-year FAST Act.

Note: This and all other bill summaries also live under the “legislative content” tab within the members-only portal.[/member_content]

The good

Preserves stable funding for transportation over five years
While this bill falls far short of meeting any financial sustainability test, it is nonetheless remarkable that Congress is about to pass a five-year bill with no cuts to overall funding levels — including funding for public transportation, which was targeted for outright removal by the House in 2012. The FAST Act provides a slight plus-up in funding over MAP-21 levels (estimated at about $10 billion over the life of the bill) by authorizing $230 billion for highways, $60 billion for public transportation, $10 billion for passenger rail and $5 billion for highway safety programs. While this bill will put a five-year hold on devolutionists calling for ending the federal program outright and dumping all the responsibility on cash-strapped states and metro areas, this “fully funded” bill comes at a steep cost in general fund revenues (that could be used elsewhere, remember) and a number of significant, innovative and locally-driven proposals that were left on the cutting room floor — which we’ll cover further down.

More support for smart transit-oriented development projects
Due in part to the hard work of T4America, Smart Growth America and LOCUS over the last year, transit-oriented development projects will be eligible for the low-interest TIFIA and RRIF federal financing programs. The small pilot program of TOD planning grants was also preserved; grants that help communities make the best use of land around transit lines and stops, efficiently locate jobs and affordable housing near new transit stations, and boost ridership.

Authorization for passenger rail is in the surface authorization for the first time
While the bill does far too little for truly making our system multimodal and making greater investments in more transportation options, it takes a positive step by bringing passenger rail into the larger surface transportation authorization for the first time ever. (This was typically passed as a standalone bill and Congress usually had little impetus for quick action.) Passenger rail will still have to go through the general appropriation process each year (getting started now for FY16, if you’ve been following along) to get their funding, but this positions it well for the long-term hope: including and funding passenger rail with guaranteed funds from a multimodal, 21st century transportation trust fund in the years ahead.

A (slight) increase in funding for metropolitan regions
Though the final product was far short of what we had been pushing for, local governments will receive slightly more money to invest in their priority projects, with an increase in what’s known as suballocated funds by 1 percent per year of the bill, up to 55 percent in 2020. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to give smaller communities under 200,000 in population any more control over how these funds are spent in their areas — the state will retain authority and can continue to choose to ignore local needs. Overall, funding directed to local communities is an improvement over MAP-21, but the funding and especially the control over those dollars still falls far short of what we need. (More on this below.)

Locals have greater access to low-cost federal loans
To apply for a TIFIA loan today, the total project cost has to be over $50 million, which makes it difficult or impossible for the projects in places that aren’t our biggest metro areas to receive funds. Our colleagues at LOCUS worked with other partners to get the threshold successfully lowered to $10 million, which opens the door to a wider range of project types in communities of all sizes, including complete streets, urban street retrofits, trails and other low-cost projects that are often the highest priority for local communities.

Safer streets for all users
Working alongside our colleagues at the National Complete Streets Coalition, we were successful in winning the requirement that state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) consider all users of the roadways when designing and building projects. Further, we were able to include a provision in the bill that allows local governments to use the street design manuals of their preference (like the NACTO guide) and preempt their state DOT’s design manual for locally constructed projects. Far too often, local governments are working hard to develop complete, safe streets, but are stymied by their state DOT’s desire to maintain fast speeds and wide lanes at the expense of other people who need to use the street and would benefit from narrower lanes, safe bike lanes or wider sidewalks.

The bad

Very little for innovation
In a world where demographic and technological change is upending the transportation industry, the FAST Act does alarmingly little to advance innovation. Despite a few glimmers of hope such as a new $60 million advanced technology deployment fund, the remainder of the bill is remarkably silent on how and where technological innovation can help improve mobility and accessibility. Even smaller changes to make car-sharing eligible for federal funds failed to get included in the bill, and Congress has even made it tougher for states to advance innovative tolling ideas as means of both managing traffic and raising new revenue.

No new performance measures
MAP-21 took a cautious first step into developing a system of measuring the performance of our transportation investments, but this bill generally refuses to continue that progress. Specifically, Congress missed an opportunity to include a new measure that would improve accessibility and measure how investments affect residents’ access to jobs and opportunity. A new national goal and performance measure was included in the House version by Reps. Waters and Carson (supported by many of their colleagues) that would require USDOT to develop a new performance measure on accessibility for urban disadvantaged populations. The conference stripped this provision.

No increase in accountability or transparency
The House and Senate shot down any and all provisions to improve accountability and transparency for the current way by which public agencies select projects, a process that the public feels is murky, mysterious, and overly political. At a time when Congress needs to take steps to restore taxpayer confidence in the system, we’ve preserved a system that wastes billions annually and fails to improve the experience of the traveling public or improve accessibility and quality of life for all Americans.

Funding for biking and walking preserved, but capped over the life of the bill
While the small but popular Transportation Alternatives Program that helps states and local communities build safe routes for biking or walking wasn’t eliminated, it’s one of the few programs where funding doesn’t grow with the overall increases in bill — it’s capped at $850 million. A new provision was included that will allow large metro areas to “flex” away half of this program to any other project they choose, so some decision-makers at the metro level will be allowed to ignore the demand for (and economic potential of) safer streets and other community-driven mobility projects.

The ugly

A one-size-fits-all freight program
Freight moves across the country on every mode of travel imaginable and our freight issues are inherently multimodal, but Congress didn’t see it that way when they earmarked 90 percent of the funds in a new freight program for highway projects. This new combination of a formula and separate discretionary grant program is the first time Congress has funded a freight program in the transportation bill, but unfortunately other options like ports, railroads, intelligent transportation systems, or better demand management are only eligible for a small share of the freight dollars. The bill creates a discretionary grant program with $800 million this year, rising to $1 billion in 2020, and creates a new formula program with $1.15 billion in the first year rising to $1.5 billion in 2020.

The bill requires states and metro areas to analyze their freight movement and come up with a multimodal plan to improve things (good!) but then only gives them funding to build highway solutions (bad!). This is a backdoor way to provide more unaccountable funding to states for highway projects that may have been on the drawing boards for decades, and does little to promote cost-effective solutions to freight mobility. One additional issue is that this new formula program relies on current highway formulas unrelated to freight movement and completely ignores freight tonnage or value that would ensure we get the biggest bang for the buck from these investments.

Local communities are left out and behind
Despite our best efforts and those of a handful of champions in both the House and the Senate, this bill does not provide significantly more transportation funding or control over that funding to local communities of all sizes. (It does increase suballocated funds by 5 percent over the life of the bill as noted in “the good” above.) It does nothing for smaller metro areas under 200,000 in population, leaving decisions about which projects to build in the hands of the state DOT, which often ignores local wishes and spends locally-earmarked funds on the projects of the state’s choosing. By failing to bring more dollars, control and accountability closer to the local level, the bill fails to restore the trust of the American people in how our transportation decisions are being made.

An astonishing cut to TIFIA loans
Just three years after MAP-21 increased the TIFIA loan program up to $1 billion, the FAST Act slashes it down to $275 million, leaving a far smaller pot for local communities to compete for. Despite some good reforms made to the program overall and at a time when Congress is eager to stimulate more investment with local or private dollars, it’s hard to fathom why the champions of TIFIA in MAP-21 sat by while this financing program was cut by 70 percent.

Using tomorrow’s funding to pay for yesterday’s policies
Rather than raise transportation user fees (or even talk about it) to fill the ever growing chasm between spending and gas tax receipts, Congress scrounged up $70 billion in non-transportation related general funds to pay for this bill. Somewhere between a third and a quarter of this bill’s cost will be covered by all taxpayers, which means places with more taxpayers and more revenue will be paying more. There won’t be a single project with its cost covered by its users over the life of this bill, and every state will be getting back far more money than they contribute in fuel taxes. This is a bad precedent and will make the hole all the harder to dig out of in 2021 when it comes time to reauthorize this program.

Wrapping it all up — the big picture

While states and metropolitan areas will appreciate the certainty of a five-year bill that guarantees funding for their planning and investments, almost a third of the bill’s cost will be paid up front by general tax revenue — not transportation user fees — offset by accounting maneuvers and budget gimmicks. We will all be paying the tab for Congress’ refusal to have an adult discussion about revenue, whether you buy a lot of gas or none at all.

With almost $75 billion in general taxpayer dollars transferred into the highway trust fund to keep it solvent over the last seven years, and more than $75 billion now pledged over the next five years, the notion of a true trust fund for transportation, funded by users of the system, is dead. Only a handful of elected leaders were willing to even broach the topic of raising or indexing the gas tax to cover the cost of their desired spending levels. The majority of our elected representatives, along with most of the traditional transportation industry, were all too willing to pass a bill at almost any cost.

As far as the bill’s policy goes, it uses tomorrow’s dollars to pay for yesterday’s ideas and represents a missed opportunity to do something much better. On the whole, Congress looked at our system for investing in transportation and said, “the approach we’ve been using for the last decade or so seems to be working. Let’s double down on that.”

Do you and your community’s leaders agree? Do you feel like the current system is working for you and your town or city? The answer to that question will tell you how you should feel about this piece of legislation.

House and Senate conference members reach agreement on five-year transportation authorization

Conferees from the House and Senate have reached agreement on a final transportation reauthorization that will tap Federal Reserve surplus funds and other accounting maneuvers to cover the bill’s full cost over five years.

The 1,300-page Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) was filed with the House this afternoon and Speaker Paul Ryan said that he expects to have a final vote this week. In the Senate, Senator John Thune told Bloomberg this afternoon that his chamber would attempt to take the bill up later this week, but it might slip to next week. MAP-21’s current extension ends this Friday, December 4th, so if action is not taken this week, expect to see a very short extension. Amendments or changes are beyond unlikely after the conference agreement, so this bill is the final product that will be voted on by the House and Senate and signed by the President.

We’re still reading through the full text of the bill and will have a more detailed analysis and statement coming in the next few days.

As expected, the bill would revive the U.S. Export-Import bank and use Federal Reserve surplus funds and numerous other budget gimmicks to produce the tens of billions in offsets required to cover the difference between current transportation spending and what the gas tax is projected to bring in each year over the life of the bill. It’s the first multi-year transportation bill since SAFETEA-LU passed in 2005, and according to Senator James Inhofe, the bill contains $227 billion for highways and $61 billion for transit.

[member_content]Members will receive some detailed summaries on the bill, so check your email inboxes for information from us over the next 48 hours.[/member_content]

Senate pivoting to yearly spending bill that increases TIGER but still cuts transit funds

While many Senate members are focused on the conference committee deliberations on a new long-term transportation bill, the Senate committee that doles out transportation money each year released an updated proposal for this fiscal year, and the news is mixed for several important transportation programs.

Update: While the Senate was expected to consider this bill on the floor Thursday, debate over Syrian refugee issues derailed any further consideration of the bill this week.

featured-thudMost transportation spending comes from the trust fund and the levels are already set (for the most part) by the current authorization — like the long-term transportation bill currently being debated. But important discretionary programs that aren’t “authorized” receive their funding each year from House and Senate appropriators.

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee released a revised proposal for all transportation and housing programs for the next fiscal year, known as the T-HUD spending bill.

The committee had agreed to an earlier version of the bill this summer, which never made it to the floor. The new bill is a substitute for that earlier bill, and includes higher funding levels as a result of the two-year budget deal passed in late October that increases federal spending by $80 billion total over the next two years.

Though when compared to the first version of the committee’s spending bill from this summer, this bill provides about $3.5 billion more funding for this year (FY 2016 started Oct. 1) and increases competitive TIGER grant funding up to $600 million, it still makes cuts to the sole program that communities across the country depend on to help them build new transit service to meet the booming demand.

Logged in T4America members can see a detailed chart comparing the Senate bill to the House version and 2015 funding levels.

[member_content]

Senate THUD 2016 comparison chart

*The Senate introduced a substitute FY16 THUD appropriation bill on November 18, 2015, which replaced the Appropriation’s Committee original bill that was agreed to by the Committee on June 25, 2015. The earlier version had lower funding levels for FTA New Starts & Small Starts and TIGER.

[/member_content]

The TIGER competitive grant program is incredibly popular in part because it’s one of the few ways that local communities can apply for and win funds for their priority projects; helping to get smart, locally-supported projects with a high return on investment off the ground. The TIGER competition ensures the best projects receive funds, and provides a level of accountability and transparency not currently available in many statewide transportation programs. While any funds for this vital program are needed and appreciated, the volume of applications for each annual TIGER round shows that the program is underfunded to fulfill the need.

Good news: the new bill proposes no changes to what kinds of projects can apply for TIGER funding, and increases funding for the program by $100 million this year.

The Senate’s initial bill introduced this summer provided $500 million for TIGER — the same amount as the just-ended fiscal year — and the House version of this bill provided far less at $100 million. It’s encouraging to see the Senate appropriators increase funding for this important program in the newest draft proposal, and that there are no changes to what kinds of projects can apply. This is a hopeful sign that for future House-Senate negotiations on the final transportation spending bill for 2016.

The funding for building new transit service — New Starts, Small Starts and Core Capacity — was increased by more than $300 million from this summer’s Senate THUD bill up to $1.9 billion, just $24 million less than the proposed House levels of $1.92 billion. That sounds like good news, but it’s still represents a $200 million cut from last year for this program.

Amtrak funding was unchanged: $289 million for operating and $1.1B for capital projects, which is slightly more ($39 million) than this year.

The Senate was expected to consider this bill Thursday before departing for Thanksgiving vacation today, but it was sidelined by Syrian refugee and ISIS-related debate.

In any case, it’s unclear if this week’s actions on this lone individual spending bill will have any measurable impact on what observers expect to be another omnibus spending bill for all federal agencies upon the members’ return in early December. We’ll keep you posted.