Skip to main content

Supercharge your community’s quick-build safety demonstration projects with Safe Streets for All

Overhead photo of a three-lane street in Chattanooga, TN, where a quick build demonstration project has resulted in additional crosswalks, activated sidewalks, and bollard-protected bike lanes

Because of a mistake by Congress in the 2021 infrastructure law, 40 percent of the new $1 billion-per-year Safe Streets for All program must be directed to planning rather than constructing tangible infrastructure projects. A clarification that the planning grants can support quick-build safety demonstration projects presents an enormous opportunity for cities and towns to directly tap the available $400 million and experiment with low-cost temporary street safety projects. This is the first of two blogs regarding opportunities to use this funding. To learn more, read part two here.

Overhead photo of a three-lane street in Chattanooga, TN, where a quick build demonstration project has resulted in additional crosswalks, activated sidewalks, and bollard-protected bike lanes
Photo by Kurt Martig, courtesy of the City of Chattanooga.

Cities and towns can typically make street safety improvements in one of two ways: they can spend their own local money on streets that they control, which comes with its own set of challenges, or they can engage their state DOT which controls federal formula transportation dollars and many of the most dangerous streets. The new Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program was so crucial because it created a new way for cities, towns, and counties to directly access federal funds to quickly create and execute on Vision Zero plans.

After Congress’s mistake requiring 40 percent of SS4A to go toward planning grants, USDOT wisely broadened their definition of planning to include demonstration projects. This creates an incredible opening for cities to receive funding to pilot temporary street design changes.

The program has $5 billion over the life of the infrastructure law, or about $1 billion per year. The next round of funding is expected to be made available this month, and cities of all sizes should consider applying for planning grants that can support quick-build demonstration projects.

What are quick-build demonstration projects?

Quick-builds, also known as demonstration projects or tactical urbanism projects, are temporary, low-cost improvements to test new changes to street design.

These quick, light, flexible, adaptable projects allow everyone involved—community members, transportation staff, elected leaders—to test specific designs and interventions that measurably improve safety and convenience for everyone who uses the street, all while gathering valuable feedback. They incorporate methods and designs that are proven to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities—documented and supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Even though temporary, these projects are a vital first step toward making real, tangible changes. And many demonstration projects often end up staying in place indefinitely, or (more typically) forming the basis of the design for a permanent project to come later. The process of creating and executing them builds new knowledge and partnerships—within the transportation department and even with other jurisdictions, related agencies, and advocates—that are vital for building permanent projects.

Tucson residents paint the street orange, green, blue, and white to draw attention to a bike lane in their Complete Streets demonstration project.
Photo courtesy of Living Streets Alliance staff. From Smart Growth America’s profile of Tucson’s Complete Streets policy.

Why should a community consider quick-build projects?

Doing something concrete—even temporarily—is a powerful way to improve safety for people walking, biking, rolling (and driving), and demonstrate an ongoing commitment to protecting all road users. It also shows how stemming the tide of preventable traffic deaths and injuries requires immediate action, creativity, and a willingness to test new things. Despite the urgent need to make streets safer immediately, even the most simple, common sense projects to build new crosswalks, widen sidewalks, add a new bike lane, or make other improvements for safety and convenience can take a lot of time and money.

Quick-build projects are one way to make some level of improvement nearly overnight at an incredibly low cost, while providing a venue for gathering valuable feedback, testing the impact of the changes, and surfacing potential pushback from community members who might oppose a permanent project. In some cases, quick-build projects end up staying in place until capital budgets and planners can execute a permanent project.

Smart Growth America will soon be releasing a summary of their 2023 Complete Streets Leadership Academy, where they worked with 10 cities and four state DOTs to design quick-build demonstration projects on state-owned roads. Stay tuned!

Demonstration projects can also be incredibly cheap. We’ve supported numerous successful demonstration projects over the last few years with grants as low as $5k-15k. Imagine what a city could do with $1 million to support a Vision Zero planning effort that’s paired with as many demonstration projects as they can build with several hundred thousand dollars?

Nearly $1 billion will be available for planning grants alone

The notice of funding availability (NOFO) from the US Department of Transportation is expected to be released sometime in February, so cities, towns, counties, metro areas or others interested in putting an application together should be getting their act together now. Unlike other USDOT grant programs that are oversubscribed, this one is far less competitive: Nearly every jurisdiction that applied for planning grants so far has been awarded funds.

In fact, over the first two rounds, USDOT didn’t receive anywhere close to $400 million in applications for planning grants. This means that nearly $450 million is rolling into this round and between $900 million and $1 billion is expected to be available for planning activities (and demonstration projects!) in this round alone. That’s an enormous sum.

This is only a temporary fix—in more ways than one

Congress made this mistake, and Congress will have to be the one to fix it. But a legislative fix is a long shot and changes to the makeup of Congress or the administration next January could complicate things further. This is just the second year of SS4A funding, and many cities already have Safety Action Plans created. As more planning funds are awarded, cities will need more capital grants instead of planning dollars. A million more demonstration projects would have a significant impact, but we need permanent changes on our streets, and more of the SS4A program should be devoted to making those permanent changes.

Finally, while demonstration projects are productive for all the reasons listed above, they’re still just short-term solutions to the long-term crisis of streets that are unsafe and inconvenient for people to use without a car. The best quick-build projects will make people safer today while also supporting and advancing local plans to apply for future implementation dollars, or create a foundation for other long-term solutions to address fatalities.

Takeaways from the Smart Growth Electrification Roundtable

A group of people in formal business attire sits in a conference room listening to a member of the roundtable speak

On January 23, 2024, Transportation for America, in partnership with the Bicameral Electrification Caucus, organized a roundtable discussion on Capitol Hill on the vital connection between smart growth and transportation electrification, and the strategies that need to be prioritized to achieve transportation equity and decarbonization goals in the next transportation reauthorization. When it comes to decarbonizing transportation it’s not about either-or. We need both electrification and more mobility choices to meet our emissions targets.

A group of people in formal business attire sits in a conference room listening to a member of the roundtable speak

Roundtable recap

In our EVs and Smart Growth series, we discussed many of the opportunities, strategies and challenges that could be deployed to maximize the emissions-reducing benefits of electrification and smart growth strategies. The top takeaway? We need to implement both policies that give people more mobility options and transportation electrification policies. Otherwise, we will not hit our climate targets. Last month, we brought together experts from the CHARGE Coalition to amplify the many different ways to implement transportation electrification while achieving sustainable, smart growth goals.

At the roundtable, we were joined by the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, the federal agency at the forefront of transportation electrification. Created as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Joint Office is leading the push to electrify, providing technical assistance to communities, developing reports, convening stakeholders, and recently, awarding funds for charger repair and innovative projects.

Forth, a nonprofit focused on expanding equitable access to electric transportation, was recently awarded funds by the Joint Office to help support an equitable electric transition. At the roundtable, Forth amplified their work building shared electric mobility programs through carshare and increasing access to charging in multifamily housing.

Forth wasn’t the only one touting the benefits of electric carshare programs. East Metro Strong has been working on carshare hubs centering multifamily and affordable housing from their base in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In areas where transit does not yet work for all trips, carshare can bridge mobility gaps that might otherwise require people to take on the costly prospect of car ownership—and this strategy should have a place in the next reauthorization.

Forth will be hosting a workshop on Equitable Electrification Transportation for Communities in Washington, DC on March 14, 2024.

re:Charge, a company working to build shared electric micromobility charging hubs to decrease downtime and charging costs, joined the roundtable to highlight the success of shared micromobility programs in cities. They also explained how sustained federal support could unlock the mode’s equity-boosting and traffic-reducing benefits. For example, while investor-owned shared-fleet micromobility has seen success in some markets and struggles in others, e-micromobility has helped catapult DC’s Capital Bikeshare to record heights.

As the transition to electrified transit fleets continues, jurisdictions will need support and resources to manage their new assets. At the roundtable, the Center for Transportation and the Environment advocated for increased technical assistance and support to ensure smooth clean fleet deployments. CALSTART, another organization helping lead the transition for buses, trucks, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, outlined the opportunities to draw from state-level transportation electrification programs. Innovative programs are available at the state level, including the Clean Mobility Options program, which provides in-depth technical assistance to communities throughout the implementation process. New transportation reauthorization programs should be designed to clearly allow new approaches that work for cities and provide the support needed to implement them.

The Zero Emission Transportation Association, representing EV and charger manufacturers and other industries in the EV environment, emphasized the growing importance of charger co-location with amenities (or what we call charger-oriented development), and recognition from industry that it’s time to move charging away from the traditional gas station model. Finally, the New Urban Mobility Alliance (NUMO) uplifted how relatively small but smart charging policies could help make the difference for an urbanized electric transition. In dense contexts, private charging infrastructure can be leveraged to increase charging options for more users with the simple addition of a cable and meter. Policies should take into account ways that private investments can be leveraged to boost charger network coverage for all users.

Two paths forward

Chart showing that, under the business-as-usual (BAU) approach, without changing vehicle fleet composition, cumulative lifecycle emissions reach 150 gigatonnes. Under both the high electrification strategy and high mode shift strategy alone, cumulative lifecycle emissions are curtailed to just above 100 gigatonnes. These previous strategies are all above the shaded area representing 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, and the one strategy that keeps temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius is a combination of both Transportation Electrification and Mode Shift strategies.

A chart from the Institute for Transportation Development Policy showing the different emissions trends that result from three transportation policy strategies, and a shaded area that would describe the threshold for warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Smart growth strategies will need to work hand in hand with transportation electrification to achieve climate goals.

As we approach the midpoint for the current transportation reauthorization, we’re finally starting to see how the infrastructure law’s new electric vehicle infrastructure programs are charting a path toward an electrified future.

Last month, we saw the release of the first set of the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program awards, which put out $622 million in funding for hydrogen fuel stations and over 7,000 EV chargers—and many of these chargers are sited in communities that need them most. Awardees selected would site both level 2 and level 3 fast chargers in disadvantaged communities, near public parks and libraries, small rural towns, and at multifamily housing. These are all places that would benefit greatly from electrification, but typically can’t rely on private investment. In some cases, awarded projects emphasized multimodal connections, including e-micromobility hubs, transit-oriented developments and even EV carshare—all strategies we uplifted in our EVs and Smart Growth series.

Screenshot of a charging site location, pinned on a map in the midst of agricultural fields and empty roads.
A newly awarded NEVI site deployed into a greenfield development. By building out where no infrastructure yet exists, investments like these can take from agricultural land and perpetuate car-dependent sprawl.

These new CFI awards show that when we double-down on integrating EV investments with smart growth strategies, we can invest in a more equitable and community-oriented electrified future, all while reducing emissions even further. However, as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program continues to roll out across the country, we see a contrast with the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program that illustrates that how we choose to electrify will have implications beyond the quantity of chargers we build.

With the latest announcement of state’s NEVI-funded chargers, there is now a clear pattern to the program, evident among the first dozen states to grant site-level awards. NEVI limits projects to sites closest to highways, without any requirement to invest in communities’ existing infrastructure—continuing a gas station mindset that doesn’t line up with EV needs. While NEVI may alleviate range anxiety, it’s currently functioning as another federal program that incentivizes continued sprawl and greenfield development.

We’ve updated our map of awardee NEVI sites, color coded with Walkscore (red is less than 50, orange is 50-75, and green is anything with a  Walkscore of 75 or greater), which you can find here:

With reauthorization fast approaching, policymakers need a clear model for what transportation electrification should look like. We need to uplift policies, programs, and projects that put communities and equity first while reducing the need for people to rely entirely on cars for their mobility needs. It’s either that, or we continue the same unsustainable development and transportation choices that gave us the very climate crisis electrification is supposed to solve. EVs must be implemented with smart growth strategies, or else we might just miss the whole point of electrification—and miss our climate targets in the process. Future EV programs should prioritize projects that acknowledge this and contribute to the buildout of new e-micromobility and transit infrastructure and support zero-emission, smart growth infrastructure.

Three years in, what can Biden still accomplish for transportation?

Joe Biden sits ponderously at his desk, pen in hand.

In November 2020, we sent the incoming Biden administration a memo outlining executive actions and long-term legislation we urged the new president to initiate. After three full years in office, modest progress has been made—but there’s still a long way to go.

President Biden sits at his desk with his pen raised. White House photo.

There are less than 365 days remaining until another administration is inaugurated, whether it be a second-term for Biden or the inauguration of a new successor. We’ve recapped the administration’s progress after their first year and their second year, and modest progress has been made. Entering this final stretch, the administration needs to shift towards bold and decisive action.

The good: Delivering critical standards for accountability

Long overdue GHG measure finalized

On November 22nd, 2023, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) re-established the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure, which requires state DOTs and metropolitan organizations (MPOs) to measure and report their transportation-associated emissions, as well as set declining targets to reduce their emissions.

The rule does not provide any incentives for state DOTs and MPOs to set aggressive goals for emissions reduction, nor does it impose any penalties for failure to meet targets. However, with the transportation sector being the largest contributor to emissions in the US, this rule is an important first step towards accountability of the federal transportation program. Despite some opposition to this new rule, states can start setting targets and make progress towards their goals immediately. Though stronger incentives and enforcement mechanisms could strengthen implementation of the rule (and this would be a great role for Congress to step in on, akin to the recently introduced Green Streets Act (SB 3669)), it is an important first step towards meaningful action in centering transparency and accountability in our transportation system.

Much-awaited MUTCD update

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released the 11th edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which is used by transportation agencies to design safe and efficient streets for users. The MUTCD contains long-awaited updates on moving closer towards a transportation system that is safe, equitable, and sustainable.

Although the MUTCD contains necessary improvements, such as allowing speed limits to be set based on local safety needs, there are still areas where reform is required to ensure safer streets for all. The FHWA has voiced interest in the MUTCD to be a living document that is flexible to the ongoing input of stakeholders. This feedback loop and process of transparent communication will help ensure that it is meeting the moment of a goal of zero roadway fatalities.

Adoption of PROWAG

The U.S. Access Board adopted the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guide (PROWAG), which looks to make equitable access to pedestrian facilities in urban areas a reality by providing enforceable accessible design requirements. Guidelines such as accessible pedestrian signals and wheelchair-accessible transit stops are fundamental components of safe and accessible streetscapes. PROWAG represents a significant step in advancing the rights and mobility of persons with disabilities, filling a regulatory gap in the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The only thing left to do now is ensure that it is actually fully enforced and adopted by the Department of Justice and Department of Transportation.

The incomplete: Challenging the status quo

Prioritizing resources for vulnerable communities

The administration is committing money and action towards efforts like Justice40, which looks to invest at least 40% of federal climate and infrastructure investments towards marginalized and overburdened communities. This initiative presents an opportunity to rectify gaps in transportation infrastructure created through decades of disinvestment in communities, but there is still more work to be done. Meaningfully creating projects that benefit those who need them most means embedding equity in every step of the process—be it public engagement or implementation. There needs to be transparency in oversight and in tracking how the money is being used. As of now, it is unclear whether funding is allocated on the basis of where environmental justice communities are located or who will enjoy the benefits of these investments.

(Still) unrepresentative Amtrak Board

For the first time in 8 years, the U.S. Senate confirmed three nominations for Amtrak board members. There are unprecedented levels of funding available for the expansion of passenger rail services, but without sufficient representative oversight, this funding can’t advance efficient Amtrak operations. Amtrak was not created solely for the Northeast Corridor, it was created to support long-distance passenger rail in the national network. Representation is required from the many diverse regions that Amtrak serves, such as rural America. However, with two out of the three nominations hailing from the Northeast Corridor, current nominations still fail to reflect all of the U.S.

Lots of talk on safety, little action

It is no secret that the dangerous design of our roadways contributes to rising pedestrian and cyclist fatalities, with the size of cars and SUVs playing a big role in jeopardizing the safety of road users. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is revising vehicle safety design and standards to consider the safety of people on the streets, not just those inside vehicles. It is crucial that these safety standards directly tackle vehicle size, speed, and visibility. We need a holistic shift in priorities to create safer systems, and current efforts simply do not go far enough. The federal government can, and must, do much more to ensure a new paradigm for road safety that centers the protection and mobility of vulnerable road users.

Marginal shifts in transportation planning and delivery

There has been marked federal, state, regional, and local transportation discussions on accounting for safety, equity, and sustainability. However, there has been little action from USDOT to make significant shifts in policy and guidance that disrupts the status quo in transportation system development. With entrenched concepts such as the value of time and induced demand in transportation development manuals, USDOT is in the front seat to help steer the conversation, but has been absent in disrupting this status quo thinking. USDOT did share guidance in late November 2023 that there are alternative transportation design manuals to consider, but fell short on shaking up the status quo go-to design manuals.

Further challenging this disruption, there has been a lot of effort from the administration to electrify our current transportation system, predominately overrun by single occupant vehicles, to solve the climate crisis. This misguided mindset misses the mark by ignoring other externalities in electrification, not to mention overlooking the need to fundamentally decarbonize transportation and reduce our dependence on privately owned vehicle miles.

Lastly, tucked away in the infrastructure law was a new rule that asked state DOTs and MPOs to rethink their transportation planning processes to coordinate with land use and housing planning. To date, there has been little mention from USDOT on guidance or regulations that pushes state DOTs and MPOs to take action on this, which will be crucial to tackle affordable housing issues and help reduce vehicle miles traveled by better colocating homes, jobs, and services in a community.

The opportunity: Actions the administration can still take

Looking ahead into this final year, complacency is a luxury that the administration simply cannot afford. The prospect of a second term hangs in the balance, and even if secured, a changed political landscape could reshape commitments to current transportation goals. The risk looms large that a different administration may also reverse some of the hard-fought wins that have been achieved if these changes are not engrained at the state and local level. With time fast running out, the administration faces a critical juncture to deliver a lasting mark in equity, accessibility, safety, and sustainability.

Issue areaDepartmentStatusDetailAction
Access to federal fundsUSDOTLimited progressPrograms like INFRA and MEGA required only one application to be considered for multiple funding opportunitiesSimplify applications for discretionary grant programs (like the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program) by creating an online application and benefit-cost analysis (BCA) process so that small, rural and limited-capacity agencies can more easily access federal funds.
Climate changeUSDOTDoneWe only measure what we treasure. Re-establish the greenhouse gas (GHG) performance measure for transportation abandoned by the last administration, follow this up with annual state GHG rankings, and provide guidance for projecting GHG emissions at the project level.
Climate changeUSDOTDoneRepeal the June 29, 2018, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Dear Colleague to public transit agencies regarding the Capital Investment Grant program, specifically the treatment of federal loans as not part of the local match, inclusion of a geographic diversity factor in grant awards, and encouraging a low federal cost share.
Climate changeUSDOTAllow rural transit systems to receive funding from the Low and No Emission bus program.
EquityUSDOTIn progressFirst round of awards issued for Reconnecting Communities, second round soon to come, plus Thriving Communities technical assistanceIdentify infrastructure that creates barriers to mobility (such as highways or rail beds that divide a community). Then prioritize resources to address those barriers and the disparities they create (e.g., by removing infrastructure barriers or creating new connectivity).
Passenger railWhite House, USDOTLimited progressNominations for new appointments with little change to the overrepresentation of the NECAppoint new members to the Amtrak Board of Directors and assess the balance of the board with respect to support for and experience with vital long distance, state-supported, and Northeast Corridor routes, as well as civic and elected leaders from local communities actually served by the existing network.
SafetyUSDOTLimited progressRevise the New Car Assessment Program to consider and prioritize the risk that increasingly larger automobile designs pose to pedestrians and cyclists and the driver’s ability to see pedestrians (particularly children and people using wheelchairs and other assistive devices).
SafetyUSDOTUpdate releasedModest changes, with the possibility for the MUTCD to become a living document, with goals for more periodic updates going forwardReopen the comment period on the handbook of street engineering standards (the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or MUTCD) used by transportation agencies to design streets, and reframe and rewrite it to remove standards and guidance that lead to streets that are hostile to or dangerous for those outside of a vehicle.
Technical guidanceWhite House, HUD, USDOT, GSARe-activate the Location Affordability Portal created by DOT and HUD and establish a location efficiency and equitable development scoring criteria to be applied to decisions involving location of new federal facilities, particularly those that serve the public.Re-activate the Location Affordability Portal created by DOT and HUD and establish a location efficiency and equitable development scoring criteria to be applied to decisions involving location of new federal facilities, particularly those that serve the public.
Ensure more accurate traffic and emissions modelingUSDOTRequire the measurement of induced demand and a review of the accuracy of current travel demand models by comparing past projections with actual outcomes, reporting their findings, and updating the models when there are discrepancies.
Replace value of time guidance with more equitable, multimodal approachUSDOTHelp states and metro areas accurately calculate the benefit of their projects by updating the value of time guidance and its focus on vehicle speed with consideration of actual projected time savings for all people, whether they travel by car or use other modes of travel.

Better build another highway: The Legacy Parkway story

A long highway surrounded by grasslands and hills, with a narrow black trail curving to the left

Gently curving through wetlands southeast of the Great Salt Lake, Utah’s Legacy Parkway has been characterized as an example of a state DOT making a principled compromise to craft a transportation solution balancing transport modes and ecological needs. However, the legacy UDOT had truly left behind was a connection for the new West Davis Corridor, an ongoing project continuing the march through the remaining marshes and farmland of the Salt Lake Valley.

A long highway surrounded by grasslands and hills, with a narrow black trail curving to the left
Legacy Parkway and multi-use trail, north of Salt Lake City, Utah. Image source: UDOT.

Background

Over the last thirty years, Utah has seen impressive population growth that has been unmatched by most states, but not all responses to growth balance communities’ needs for equity, environmental preservation, and economic sustainability.

According to projections from transportation planners at UDOT, population and travel demand in the five counties on the east half of the Great Salt Lake were going to increase an astonishing 60 percent and 69 percent, respectively, by 2020. (2020 Census data shows their population estimate was off by about 130,000 people.) Planners warned that at this scale of growth, not building new highway infrastructure would be devastating with travel speeds at peak hours dropping to just seven miles per hour.

To prevent this catastrophe, Utah Governor Michael Leavitt announced long-range plans for Legacy Highway in 1996, a 120-mile highway running parallel to Interstate 15. The first portion of this expansive route would be called Legacy Parkway and double as a “line in the sand” to prevent development west of the highway. Under the Utah DOT’s original preferred plan, that line would cut through 1,568 acres of Utah’s rare wetlands and historic farmsteads.

Advocates push back

Starting in 1997, the Utah Department of Transportation began environmental impact studies for Legacy Parkway as part of the NEPA process, culminating in the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 1998. In the public meetings following the release, advocacy groups like Utahns for Better Transportation highlighted a multitude of flaws in the study and in the plans themselves. Instead of presenting alternatives to highway routes, UDOT presented the public with alternative highway routes, variations in the right of way that differed only in their relative negative impacts on residences, farms, and wetlands. Residents pointed to the Draft Environmental Statement’s incompleteness and contradictions, finding it had failed to calculate the project’s impact on wildlife, paradoxically associated higher air quality with increasing vehicle travel, and neglected to evaluate transit and land use among the alternatives. In an analysis commissioned by the Sierra Club, researchers found the DEIS’s traffic analyses were misleading. The models were applied inconsistently across geographies, allowing UDOT to present the no-build alternative as extremely untenable.

Legacy Highway

Musicians weighed in on the project too. Country music singer and songwriter Brenn Hill wrote the song “Legacy Highway” expressing his frustrations about the plan. The title of this blog post comes from the lyrics of that song. Listen to it here.

After one year of comments and federal reviews, UDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, the lead federal agency of the project, released the Legacy Parkway Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in July 2000. Utah DOT’s new preferred plans would include a multi-use trail, cost only $369 million, fill only 46 acres of wetlands, and impact the second least amount of developable land compared to alternative highway plans.

Screen capture of a chart of Projected Demographic and Traffic Changes in Legacy Parkway’s 2000 Environmental Impact Statement, which includes projections for population, households, employment, vehicles, home-based work trips, total vehicle trips, VMT, and average system peak speed. The chart is available on page 47 of the document linked in the caption of this image.
Legacy Parkway 2000 Final Environmental Impact Statement, including the projected 60% increase in population from 1995 to 2020.

While UDOT’s Final Environmental Impact Study portrayed Legacy Parkway as a principled compromise that could both meet the automotive travel demands of 2020 and preserve wetlands, it still ignored much of the substantive criticism levied against the models in the earlier Draft Environmental Impact Statement. As UDOT forged ahead, awarding construction contracts as early as December 2000 (before they’d received final permits), Utahns for Better Transportation, the Sierra Club, and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson took the only recourse left to them: they filed a lawsuit.

Lawsuit

Construction on the Legacy Parkway began in January 2001, just after the Federal Highway Administration approved the Legacy Parkway FEIS. With no other recourse, Utahns for Better Transportation, the Sierra Club, and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson sued the Utah Department of Transportation and participating federal agencies to stop the construction of Legacy Parkway. The plaintiffs brought their issues against the DEIS and FEIS to the Utah District Court.

Elected leaders make a difference

It should not be too surprising that Anderson, a mayor known for his ardent advocacy for sustainable municipal policies, joined the suit. Since the start of his term in 1999, Mayor Anderson had seen the outsized impact that Salt Lake City’s TRAX light rail system had on the city and presided over network improvements that improved daily ridership vastly beyond initial projections. Local support for transportation alternatives grew to be so strong that voters in the city passed tax increases—on themselves—to support the development of new mass transit infrastructure. Building off of public support for these new systems, Anderson stated that “with the commitment by the community to mass transit comes a commitment by our Administration to transit-oriented development.”

While the first case against Legacy Parkway was dismissed in the Utah District Court, the coalition of advocates appealed the decision in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2001, the court issued an injunction and forced the Utah Department of Transportation to cease construction. After nearly a year of review, the Court found that the federal agencies’ Environmental Impact Statements were inadequate “to the point of being arbitrary and capricious.”

The court forced the agencies to develop a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that addressed failures to adequately consider harm to wildlife, alternate highway routes, narrower median design (the design included in the 2000 FEIS would have allowed for future expansion to six lanes), and mass transit. UDOT and the FHWA developed a new impact statement to account for the original deficiencies from 2002 to 2004, but by then, the project could not afford any more lawsuits.

Compromise

Advocates might have won the battle, but they lost the war. They negotiated a compromise with UDOT while the Final Environmental Impact Statement was being drafted, winning concessions like $2.5 million for rapid transit studies, an additional $12 million for land preservation, and unique provisions banning semi-trucks and lowering Legacy Parkway’s speed limit (an ineffective solution to dangerous roadway speeds, as we wrote in Dangerous by Design).

Construction resumed in March 2006, Legacy Parkway was completed in 2008, and just 12 years later, the provisions expired, allowing the speed limit to increase and semi-trucks to drive on the parkway. By making a few temporary compromises, UDOT successfully greenwashed the first segment of the 120-mile-long Legacy Highway network that now transports 20,000-30,000 vehicles a day.

When Legacy Parkway opened, it was celebrated by motorists for its scenic routes and tranquil views of sunflower blooms along its meandering path. Ironically, drivers enjoying the views now contribute to emissions in a region with some of the worst air quality in the nation. To build the parkway, over 4 million tons of material had to be used to fill in the wetlands below the road and the concrete and steel used in construction could have produced as much as 40,000 tons of CO2. It cost 685 million dollars.

Better build another highway

Though planners miscalculated how dramatic population growth would be in the past, the counties surrounding the Great Salt Lake will no doubt continue to see major growth. But rather than taking congestion as a sign to innovate new solutions, like a hammer looking for a nail, UDOT uses the all too familiar tool of highway expansion to “solve” congestion. Lane additions and highway expansion every 10 years can’t solve traffic and certainly will not improve ecological outcomes, but it can cost the public their health and hundreds of millions of dollars for a handful of miles.

Now UDOT has new plans for a northern expansion of Legacy Parkway, meant to address still further population growth projections. UDOT and FHWA have familiar words for the project, called the West Davis Corridor:

By 2040, the number of households in this region will increase by 65 percent. This population growth requires a solution that addresses upcoming transportation needs while minimizing impact to the community and environment. After a thorough analysis of fifty-one alternatives, a preferred alternative (West Davis Highway) has been identified. By 2040, this one project would reduce all congestion west of I-15 by one-third.

This new highway will include a land preserve and a recreational trail as part of its environmental impact mitigation strategy. While the interchange to I-15 is being constructed, traffic is being routed over the Legacy Parkway. The budget for the West Davis Corridor project is $800 million.

A satellite image from the Utah Department of Transportation showing a new extension of roadway North of Legacy Parkway, weaving past the Salt Lake and into suburbs north of Salt Lake City.
Project plans showing the interchange between I-15, Legacy Parkway and the West Davis Corridor. Image Source: ArcGIS

State DOTs would have us believe that highways are the solution to population growth and congestion on our nation’s roadways, but history has proven otherwise. Costly highway projects always seem to require a new costly highway project, and the endless cycle only makes conditions worse for the environment and people who live around and drive on these roads. While advocates did succeed in changing the course and character of Legacy Parkway, this compromise failed to make lasting change. To do that, we need more than compromise. We need a fundamental change in our priorities.

Community Connectors: tools for advocates

You may be fighting against a freeway expansion. You may be trying to advance a Reconnecting Communities project to remove an old highway. You might be just trying to make wide, dangerous arterial roads a little safer for people to cross. This Community Connectors portal explains common terms, decodes the processes, clarifies the important actors, and inspires with helpful real-world stories.

Why we need the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act

A diverse set of passengers (women and men, young and old) rides a bus down a sunny street

Representative Hank Johnson (GA-04) reintroduced the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act, which would establish a federal funding program for transit operations, providing $20 billion in annual funding over four years ($80 billion) to expand the service of buses and trains. We are joining the National Campaign for Transit Justice, the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) in support of this bill.

Public transit is essential to communities, local economies, and the lives of millions of people across the country. As they work to deliver frequent and reliable service, transit agencies can use federal funding to repair and maintain their systems and to build out new services—but they can’t use it to help cover the cost of operating their systems, which accounts for two-thirds of a transit agency’s total expenses. Agencies have to turn to local taxes, fares, and fees to cover this gap.

Faced with fiscal cliffs in the years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic plus escalating inflation, many transit agencies have been forced to reduce service rather than focusing on increasing ridership back to—and beyond—pre-pandemic levels. This crisis has demonstrated that the current approach is failing to meet the needs of millions of Americans who rely upon transit to reach their essential destinations.

The Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act would modernize transit operations funding by creating a new formula grant program that can be used to make “substantial improvements to transit service.” Furthermore, the bill aims to allot funding for places that need it most, clearly defining funding for areas of persistent poverty and underserved communities—places where transit ridership tends to be highest.

“Getting people to work and providing essential services is the primary purpose of the transportation system, and it fails if it can only do that for people who have the money and ability to drive. With the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act, Rep. Johnson not only offers needed support for increased transit service to connect people with the things they need, but for the high quality, dependable transit service that people require for true access to opportunity.” —Beth Osborne, Director of Transportation for America

The U.S. relies on public transit to make our economy work. Americans depend on transit to get to where they need to go and help their businesses thrive. The U.S. needs to invest in frequent, reliable, and affordable transit, and the Stronger Communities Through Better Transit Act is a crucial step forward in achieving this vision.

Take Action

Perspectives and takeaways from my first time at TCamp

TransportationCamp DC took place at George Mason University Arlington Campus on January 6. As one of 300 attendees in person – with an additional 100 joining virtually – I witnessed the beauty of what can happen when people come together to have conversations about transportation and policy reform and the future of transportation infrastructure across the nation.

A rainy first Saturday of the year did not deter the enthusiasm and participation of hundreds of folks who came from near and far for the much anticipated annual TransportationCamp DC. The multi-purpose room of Van Metre hall slowly filled as people grabbed their morning coffee and bagels and said hello to friendly faces, old and new, while mulling over an icebreaker that prompted people to consider how to implement or improve upon different modes of transportation at the local and national level.

This annual “unconference” is a unique approach to talking about transportation. Rather than create a pre-planned agenda, the program’s sessions are decided by the participants, who range in age and expertise. They pitch topics of discussion to the group at large who then carefully consider and vote on the propositions that interest them most, resulting in the day’s agenda. Gradually, sheets of paper began to line the front of the room where people frantically wrote and displayed their session ideas in the hopes of winning over the crowd with their proposed topics. An array of ideas – green mobility, data-driven policy, transit equity, and climate grief and burnout to name a few – were listed, enticing people to intently ponder which subjects resonated most with them before casting their votes. 

Once the submission window closed, attendees transitioned to the main auditorium to hear from Veronica O. Davis, the Director of Transportation for the City of Houston. With copies of her new book, “Inclusive Transportation” in hand, people took their seats in anticipation of her opening remarks. Davis, a lively, energetic speaker who came prepared to engage the audience, began by surveying the room. When prompting people to proudly raise their hands if they grew up walking and biking in their communities, dozens of arms shot up, but the numbers dwindled as she built in the context of today, wondering at last, who among the crowd would allow their children to walk or bike in our current environment.

“We have built a world in which a child cannot move freely,” she acknowledged. It was a captivating segue into the rest of her presentation, where she read aloud the preface of her book and invited everyone to let their guard down and enter the day’s conversations intentionally, respectfully, and openly.

Inspired and ready for the day to unfold, it was nothing but hustle and bustle to peer over the heads and shoulders of the crowd that had formed to view the official schedule of the day. Five periods and their corresponding rooms and topics were assigned…TCamp was officially in session. Breakout rooms became an intimate space to discuss pedestrian safety, transit-oriented development, curbing transportation emissions, and more. The structure for each session ranged from formal presentations to open forums to robust group discussions.

I attended one session all about “researching your passion” and found myself sharing my interests in data storytelling. To my surprise, two other people in the small group expressed similar interests. The like-mindedness and curiosity of campers at TransportationCamp made it easy to feel included and I learned that it didn’t matter what my background or experience was. If you are willing to learn, there are endless opportunities to inherit new nuggets of knowledge.

Speaking of knowledge, the plenary speech given by Councilmember John J. Bauters was a presentation chock-full of additional, valuable insights. With an impressive background and intense understanding of the field, Bauters took a moment to showcase a variety of examples and success stories of how he’s helped his community in Emeryville, CA become a force to be reckoned with when it comes to inclusive transportation and infrastructure. Bauters’ speech helped me understand the importance of engaging with and electing decision-makers that align with my transportation goals, a lesson I was able to take into the conversations that followed for the remainder of the day.

After a jam-packed day, Camp came to an end, though the conversations were far from over. Some participants lingered beyond closing while others made their way to the reception at Penn Social in D.C. It was a space for vibrant and engaging interactions where people proceeded to mingle and enjoy a relaxed atmosphere complete with snacks, drinks, music, and arcade games.

It’s evident that TransportationCamp sets the stage for advocates, planners, and transportation nerds alike to enter the year with new or evolved alliances with peers and an invigorated sense of purpose and determination. Devoting time to learn and grow together is a powerful tool that generates hope for the future, a future where everyone can travel safely and conveniently, no matter where their trip begins and ends.

Special thanks to our sponsors!

Frequently asked questions about TransportationCamp DC

TransportationCamp DC is coming back on Saturday, January 6, 2024 at George Mason University’s Arlington campus. This is an annual opportunity to connect with experts, practitioners, and students all at once. Here’s everything you need to know about the “unconference.”

A Black man in a suit stands behind a podium. The slide behind him reads "TransportationCamp DC January 7, 2023, GMU Arlington Campus in person and online"
Shabazz Stuart delivers the keynote speech at TransportationCamp DC 2023.

1. Why is it called an unconference?

At TransportationCamp, every attendee has the opportunity to lead the conversation. Attendees submit topics for 50-minute breakout sessions and in-person Campers get to vote on what they want to talk about, giving the power to participants to create the experience they want to have!

2. Who should come to TCamp?

Everyone! Advocates, practitioners, Complete Streets Champions, politicians, business leaders, and students are all welcome to join and learn from each other.

3. When should I buy tickets?

Tickets are on sale right now! Get yours while spots last.

4. How do I submit sessions?

The process is different depending on whether or not you’re joining us virtually or in person. Here’s what it looks like:

In person: Attendees will submit sessions the morning of Camp and have the chance to vote on what they want to discuss.

Virtual: Attendees must be registered for Camp to submit sessions. Look for the submission form in your confirmation email!

If you plan to attend TCamp on Zoom, virtual-only sessions will play a big part in your experience. The deadline to submit virtual session ideas is December 31—have you submitted your session yet?

5. What do I need to know about leading a session?

We want sessions to feel like a conversation, so we recommend a casual, engaging, and inclusive approach. Breakout rooms at GMU will each have a projector, USB port, a computer if you need to use email to access resources, and a whiteboard with whiteboard markers.

Keep accessibility in mind. 14-point font is best for presentations. Be sure to choose a high-contrast design and, if you’re joining us in person, we’ll have a Google Drive folder available where you can drop your slides for people to view on their personal devices. Keeping these in mind will help ensure that everyone is able to enjoy your presentation.

For more advice on leading a session, please check here.

5. How do I get there?

Map

TransportationCamp will be at Van Metre Hall on George Mason University’s Arlington campus, 3351 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201.

By bike: Bike parking is available near the front entrance on Fairfax Drive and in the parking garage, located at the rear of the building.

By metro: The closest metro stop is Virginia Square–GMU on the orange and silver line. Exit via Virginia Sq-GMU Metrorail Station at the southwest corner of Fairfax Drive & North Monroe Street, then head north on North Monroe St toward Fairfax Drive.

By car: Route to Founders Way North, Arlington, VA in Google Maps to get directed to the parking garage entrance.

For those joining Camp virtually, make sure info@t4america.org emails are reaching your inbox. Check your email the morning of Camp for a Zoom link to join, then you can simply tune in by joining a session using the link we attach.

6. Can I volunteer at TransportationCamp?

This year we are unfortunately not able to do an open call for volunteers. However, for future Camps, we’d like to have volunteer tickets available for partnering schools and organizations. If you are a student or part of an organization that would be interested in volunteering at Camp next year, please reach out to us!

7. Is there TransportationCamp near me?

There are TransportationCamps across the country hosted by various organizations! Visit transportationcamp.org to learn more.

8. Who can I contact for more information?

If you have questions or comments, please email tcampdc@smartgrowthamerica.org. We’ll get back to you as soon as possible!

Press statement: Newly updated MUTCD doesn’t go far enough to protect pedestrians

press release

Washington, D.C. (Dec. 20) — Yesterday, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released the 11th Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a document “that governs how traffic control devices communicate the design intent to the road user to safely and efficiently navigate the roadway system.” Smart Growth America and Transportation for America are glad to see FHWA include more considerations for people outside of a personal automobile and provide additional flexibility for practitioners. However, in the face of historic rates of roadway fatalities, especially pedestrian fatalities, incremental improvements are a lackluster response.

Beth Osborne, Vice President of Transportation and Thriving Communities at Smart Growth America, released the following statement:

“This update to the MUTCD did respond to some of our requests, particularly allowing transportation agencies to paint red bus-only lanes and green bike lanes. There are also long-awaited updates that could have positive impacts, such as new considerations before setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed and making it a little easier to justify new crosswalks.

“However, this falls short of the kind of major paradigm shift required to protect vulnerable users at a time when the United States leads the developed world in roadway fatalities. For example, while transportation agencies must consider context and the users of a road before setting speed limits at the 85th percentile speed, they may still do so even if that causes dangerous conditions. The document also indicates great concern about color and designs in crosswalks that would better draw a driver’s attention to those areas, including a misguided fear that pedestrians might actually stand in traffic to look at those colors and designs.

“Some of FHWA’s trepidation around innovation may come from a misunderstanding of how agencies use manuals like this. In our direct technical assistance programs, the MUTCD is cited as a barrier to many common-sense safety interventions in almost every state DOT. New flexibility often goes underutilized for lack of clear and strict guidance. That is because engineers understand the status quo while the flexible option requires an engineer to create something new, something most overworked agency engineers do not have time to do. Even when they do, their general council usually cautions against trying new things because flexibility does not come with the same legal coverage as a standard.

“To achieve safer streets, we stand behind FHWA’s goal to make the MUTCD a living document and look forward to continued partnership to align their intentions with results. To that end, we call upon the FHWA to improve data collection and implement a feedback loop that allows amendments to the current MUTCD as soon as 2024 to prevent more avoidable deaths. We commit to working with FHWA to modernize the MUTCD and with Complete Streets champions in their efforts to make streets safe for everyone.”

 

 

Green Light for Climate Action: Unveiling the impact of the GHG Emissions Measure rule

The United States Capitol Building.

By mandating emissions tracking and target setting, the GHG Emissions Measure addresses an urgent need for climate action. And while this popular rule is an important first step, its success hinges on immediate and effective action at the state and local levels, which would signify a shift towards a cleaner, and greener, transportation landscape.

The United States Capitol building. (John Xavier via Flickr)

On November 22, 2023, the Department of Transportation released the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure rule, requiring state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure and report their transportation-associated emissions, as well as set targets to lower these emissions. This rule is long overdue, with a period of public comment on the rule having closed over a year ago in October 2022. More than 60,000 comments were received by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with comments in favor outweighing those opposed by more than 3,000 to 1, demonstrating overwhelming support from government agencies, and transit and advocacy groups, for progress on emissions reduction. 

What does this mean for state DOTs and MPOs?

With the passage of the rule, all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, are mandated to measure GHG emissions associated with on-road mobile sources on the National Highway System (NHS) within their geographic or planning area boundaries. Additionally, state DOTs will need to establish 2 and 4-year emissions reduction targets, and MPOs will need to establish 4-year targets. State DOTs are expected to submit their first targets on February 1, 2024, signifying the administration’s endorsement of an aggressive and rapid policy rollout in the right direction. Both state DOTs and MPOs will need to consistently provide updates to report their progress in meeting their targets. 

The GHG rule expands on important work in setting declining GHG emissions targets that already exist and has been implemented in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Crucially, the new rule provides a national framework and recommended method that standardizes how emissions should be calculated. A uniform calculation methodology allows for consistency across the board in emissions data that is currently produced and will be produced, and the ability to uniformly compare progress through timely updates.

State DOTs and MPOs are awarded a high degree of flexibility in setting their own declining GHG targets and pathways for achieving them, allowing alignment with their respective policy priorities. This also means that there is no incentive to set competitive targets, and there are no penalties imposed for failures to meet these set targets either. While the rule brings sunlight to progress on emissions targets, the absence of an enforcement mechanism implies that it may not drive substantial action in shifting the status quo.

Moreover, it is important to note that the emissions mandated for tracking and reporting by this rule pertain only to travel on the National Highway System (NHS), not all roads. As of 2020, the NHS represented only 5.3% of total mainline miles of roadway in the US. By solely focusing on NHS-related travel, more than 46% of the total vehicle miles traveled in the US are overlooked.

From awareness to action

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is channeling historic amounts of federal funding into states for transportation projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Among its programs is the Carbon Reduction program which provides funding for state projects focusing on carbon emissions reduction. These dollars hold unprecedented potential for investment in transportation projects that create climate-resilient and reliable transit networks. However, there is also the possibility that this money may continue to be invested in highway widening projects, leading to the opposite outcome of actually increasing emissions. Constituents deserve to know that their taxpayer money is going where it needs to go.

The new law arms the public with an important advocacy and transparency tool to assess whether the administration is fulfilling its promise of delivering on sustainable and equitable transportation options. This accountability encourages states and local leaders to align their work with their constituents’ goals and prioritize projects accordingly. 

Confronting the climate crisis demands urgency. Changing climate conditions across the country are increasingly threatening the connectivity, efficiency, and safety of our transportation systems, impacting communities’ abilities to access daily necessities and get where they need to go. With adverse weather events impacting reliable service and recently witnessed air quality crises, the administration could not afford to delay decisive action any longer.

The science on this has also never been clearer. The Sixth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes the unequivocal need to implement transformative change in the transportation sector. The transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States, and aligning climate goals with transportation agency goals is pivotal to moving closer to achieving the nation’s ambitious net-zero goals. Ultimately, the GHG performance measure should pave the way for more aggressive and ambitious climate mitigation and adaptation policies. 

The GHG rule is not a silver bullet 

T4A’s director, Beth Osborne, wrote in our statement on the rule that “these decisions have benefits beyond reducing emissions, like providing people with more opportunities to travel outside of a car, which enhances safety and mobility.” It is important to remember that achieving climate targets and creating equitable communities hinges on breaking free from car dependency.  Electrification and vehicle efficiency, on their own, will not lead us out of the climate crisis. Our report, Driving Down Emissions, underscores the importance of accounting for factors like induced demand and shifting away from car-oriented land use in efforts to reduce emissions. 

The GHG rule is a valuable, first step on a long path towards ensuring climate accountability and transparency in our transportation system, but we must continue to capitalize on this momentum to ensure that our transportation agencies move in the right direction. While we applaud the release of the new rule, it is evident that we need immediate and effective implementation and investment in greener forms of transportation, if the law will have the much-needed impact it intends. 

Avoiding Derailment: The Freights First Act in Perspective

Amtrak’s eastbound Texas Eagle train departs Dallas.

There is no denying that there are persistent issues that impact reliable freight service and the efficient delivery of goods nationwide. Yet, despite the discussion of the myriad service issues that affect the supply chain, Amtrak and passenger rail have not been identified as a cause of disruption, and have, in fact, been conspicuously absent from the conversation in general. Despite this lack of impact, critics argue that if the Freights First Act is enacted, it could jeopardize the growth of passenger rail and roll back vital infrastructure investment goals.

Amtrak’s eastbound Texas Eagle departs Dallas. (Matt Shell via Flickr)

The Freights First Act, introduced by Rep. Eric Burlison (MO), seeks to “eliminate Amtrak’s right of preference” over freight transportation in what is being portrayed as an attempt to prevent freight rail bottlenecks and expedite freight movement. Co-sponsored by U.S. Representatives Troy E. Nehls (TX), Scott Perry (PA), Andrew Ogles (TN), and Harriet M. Hageman (WY), there has been no evidence implicating passenger rail as an obstacle to freight service productivity.

In April 2022, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) held a public hearing to urgently assess freight rail service performance and how unreliability and inconsistency impact the supply chain. Stakeholders, including rail labor organizations and shipping companies, gave extensive testimonies regarding service concerns and their vision for a path toward service recovery. The STB found that decades-long practices such as reducing operating ratios and diminishing the existing workforce to cut costs are harmful to operations and stymies service. 

Following the investigation, the STB issued a ruling that requires Class 1 freight railroads, namely BNSF, CSX, UP, and NS, to be put on an aggressive schedule to provide updates on their rail service, performance, and employment. This evaluation of progress is a significant step forward in monitoring improvements from freight railroads that urgently need to reform their precision scheduled railroading model as well as increase transparency and accountability. 

Notably, passenger rail was not identified as a concern throughout this process—even by the freight provider’s own admission. This means that if enacted, this legislation will likely not improve delays and establish efficient freight service. What this legislation will achieve, is effectively dismantling a robust network of national and state-supported passenger rail service, and undermining the vision for growth and expansion of nationwide passenger rail service outlined in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). 

The Freights First Act also contradicts the goals of the citizens whom proponents of this bill are supposed to represent while obscuring and ignoring the real obstacles that are hindering the improvement of freight service. Mayors of Houston, Austin, and San Antonio have looked into popular options to expanding passenger rail in the Texas Triangle in order to prioritize local economies and connect people to services. The current infrastructure funding presents an opportunity for these states to advance projects that can improve mobility in their region, including the extension of the Amtrak Heartland Flyer as well as the I-35 rail expansion. Similarly, Memphis, Nashville, and Chattanooga have declared interest in passenger rail opportunities throughout Tennessee to meet growth and mobility needs. The agenda being advocated for by the representatives sponsoring the Freights First Act is entirely misaligned with the tireless support for passenger rail exhibited by these states and communities.

The IIJA presents a momentous opportunity to act decisively and improve community connectivity through a strong network of passenger rail service, and our responsibility is to support this movement, not roll it back. The Freights First Act is presented as an aspiration for improving the nation’s supply chain performance but it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to destroy intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation. 

Transportation for America Applauds Long-awaited USDOT GHG Rule

press release

The GHG emissions measure will require U.S. states and territories to measure and report transportation-related emissions on federal roadways.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Nov. 27) — Last Wednesday (11/22), the Biden Administration released the U.S. Department of Transportation’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rule. The rule requires all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, to track greenhouse gas emissions associated with travel on the parts of the National Highway System that lie within their boundaries and sets a unified standard for reporting emissions.

Transportation is the leading contributor to GHG emissions in the U.S. and the performance measure is an important first step to advance climate goals by bringing sunlight to states’ progress on emissions targets, allowing states and MPOs to better align their work with climate goals, and demonstrating to policymakers and taxpayers what they are getting for their transportation investments.

“We thank USDOT for its leadership in requiring states to measure GHG emissions from transportation,” said Beth Osborne, Director of Transportation for America. “Because transportation is responsible for nearly a third of climate emissions nationwide, and as much as half in some metro areas, determining the impact of transportation investments on climate emissions is essential for understanding how well the transportation system is performing. It is hard to think of a way that states could participate in a solution without articulating the current problem and setting targets for achieving them.”

“This rule is a crucial first step toward climate accountability in transportation and very simple for the states to implement, but we must go further by investing in public transportation and location efficiency to allow people to reach the things they need without being forced to drive more and more each year,” continued Beth. “These investments have benefits beyond reducing emissions, including public health benefits and providing people with more opportunities to travel outside of a car, which enhances safety and economic mobility.”

“Transportation for America stands ready to support the rule’s implementation and we look forward to continuing to advocate for increased transparency and aggressive climate change mitigation policies and investments.”

This GHG rule is final and is now in effect. The first milestone requires State DOTs to establish and report targets on February 1, 2024, necessitating a rapid rollout and immediate implementation measures from federal and state governments alike.

###

Transportation for America is an advocacy organization made up of local, regional, and state leaders who envision a transportation system that safely, affordably, and conveniently connects people of all means and ability to jobs, services, and opportunity through multiple modes of travel. T4America is a program of Smart Growth America.

Transit’s physical cliff: Climate change

A passenger train crosses a bridge near coastal California cliffs

California and New York State Legislatures voted to save transit from the fiscal cliff in 2023. While a win for transit can be a win for the climate, changing conditions across the country demonstrate the need for transit to find ways to be both fiscally and physically resilient.

A passenger train crosses a bridge near coastal California cliffs

Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner along coastal bluffs. Photo by Glenn Beltz via Flickr.

Between uncertain revenue sources, a sluggish ridership recovery after the pandemic, and increasing inflation-derived capital costs, transit agencies have their work cut out for them over the next few years. However, these crises are not new. Over the course of the 20th century, urban mass transit has had to weather many of the same crises we face today, including dealing with sprawling development, congested commutes, and inevitable budget crises stemming from unsustainable revenue streams. Transit advocates still need to find permanent ways down the fiscal cliff, and the solutions will likely involve brave policy decisions, coordinated advocacy, and innovation from transit authorities. 

But the fiscal cliff is not the only problem on the horizon. As climate change unfolds, transit will need the support to serve as communities’ resilient backbone through subtle, day-to-day challenges and demanding disasters. 

Changing landscapes

Coastal erosion, an issue only exacerbated by climate change, threatens one of the country’s most highly utilized rail transportation corridors. The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Corridor in Southern California serves millions of riders annually and currently vies for the title of second-busiest intercity passenger rail corridor with Miami and Orlando’s new Brightline rail service. The alignment hosts Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner as well as two commuter rail services, Metrolink in Los Angeles and Coaster in San Diego, connecting people to jobs along the coast and helping travelers bypass the extreme traffic congestion Southern Californians have always struggled with.

Despite the high ridership and significance to the region, the current alignment is literally falling into the sea as the rails on sandstone bluffs erode with rising sea levels and shifting weather patterns.  After two decades of service interruptions from landslides and over $100 million spent on temporary measures to stave off literal collapse, the San Diego Association of Governments has begun preliminary engineering & environmental review work to study a new alignment (with plans to open in 2035), after years of consideration and following months of service interruptions.

Sudden disasters

As adverse weather events like the recent Hurricane Otis and Tropical Storm Hilary become increasingly frequent and intense, the federal government, states, MPOs, and transit authorities will need to find ways to cooperate both proactively and reactively to meet the moment. Failure to prepare for and rebuild in the wake of a disaster can set regions back for years and only increase future chaos. When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast’s rail infrastructure, it eliminated a key resource for the region’s resilience. While freight rail infrastructure was quickly repaired, passenger trains have been out of service for nearly two decades and only recently—after much effort—are due to return. 

Without passenger rail or mass transit, residents are dependent on highway infrastructure for evacuation, which is vulnerable to car crashes and choking congestion during emergencies (check out the congestion on I-45 during an evacuation of Houston in 2005). Transit and passenger rail can provide citizens, especially those who do not have a car, a resilient avenue for evacuation that won’t just clog with a traffic jam.

The need for emergency funding

The stunningly fast 12-day turnaround to patch connections after the Interstate 95 collapse in Philadelphia this year shows just how swiftly critical infrastructure can be restored when properly prioritized. Mere days after the collapse, the Federal Highway Administration released $3 million to Pennsylvania DOT, offsetting the costs of the state’s repairs that started immediately after the incident. The FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, funded at $100 million annually (in addition to supplemental appropriations), covers 100 percent of the immediate costs to mitigate emergency damage and up to 90 percent of federal highway repairs. This fast-acting program enables critical, day-one work to restore service, as states can work with certainty that they will be quickly reimbursed. 

Transit and passenger rail need emergency funding that is just as responsive (if not more so) than programs for highway infrastructure. Just as repairs are needed for highways to continue functioning after a disaster, they’re needed to keep transit and passenger rail running on time so that people can get where they need to go. And since transit can be a valuable tool for mobility in the wake of disaster, transit systems should be restored as quickly as possible to ensure travel flow can continue. 

Unlike the FHWA’s emergency program, the Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transit Emergency Relief Program receives $0 in annual appropriations. Instead, transit has to rely on Congress to pass legislation (a task that generally requires a Speaker of the House) to respond to disasters. This means that FTA cannot provide funding immediately after emergencies. Worse still, when disaster hits rail infrastructure, FTA’s disaster reserves have been transferred out to the Federal Railroad Administration, which does not have a much-needed emergency relief program of its own. Funds for disasters that occurred as far back as 2017 were only awarded this year as a result of an act that appropriated just $214 million to transit for four calendar years of disasters. Meanwhile, the same bill appropriated an additional $803 million to FHWA’s emergency program, on top of annual appropriations. 

This issue is being recognized by federal legislators in new marker bills leading up to the next transportation reauthorization bill. Earlier this year, Senator Fetterman introduced a bill to inject an additional $50 million annually for the FTA’s Public Transit Emergency Relief Program to expedite the delivery of funds to match I-95’s 12-day recovery.  In response to sudden rain and flooding in New York, Senator Gillibrand put forth legislation that would add funding to help transit agencies conduct proactive resiliency projects to FTA’s State of Good Repair Grants. Long-term resiliency for transit matters more every year, as its riders, many of whom are low-income,  will be the most intensely hit by climate change, which they will face in the form of record-breaking heatwaves, rainstorms, and wildfire-induced air pollution. 

The bottom line

With the IIJA lapsing in 2026 and natural disasters on the rise with climate change, Congress needs to devise new policies to improve how the country restores public transit in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and even the less dramatic, predictable emergencies. New programs must find ways to prioritize transit speed, equitable service, and long-term resiliency, not just infrastructure built the same and built to fail.

Catching the e-bike wave

A man with dark hair and sunglasses rides a Capitol Bikeshare bicycle down a painted bike lane near a treelined sidewalk.

Electric bikes have enormous potential to deliver affordable, clean, healthy and space-efficient transportation to the masses, but the feds and too many other leaders are passing up this opportunity in favor of electrifying the status quo.

A man with dark hair and sunglasses rides a Capitol Bikeshare bicycle down a painted bike lane near a treelined sidewalk.

Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

The best selling type of electric vehicle in the U.S. is traffic-busting, space-efficient, healthy, and doesn’t require a drop of gas—but it’s not an electric car. Talk to anyone who owns an electric bicycle and you’ll get an earful on how practical, fun and life-changing these machines are. You have all the fun of being on a bike, but the power assist makes the hills flat and keeps you from breaking a sweat. E-cargo-bikes make carrying larger loads easy, replacing car-trips to the grocery store and helping to shuttle kids to school and activities. Maybe all this—and their relative affordability—is why, as both markets grow rapidly, e-bike sales continue to outpace electric cars.

The tsunami of e-bikes entering the transportation mix is great news for smart growth. E-bikes and other electric micromobility devices, like electric scooters, are relatively affordable and powerful transportation tools that, like regular bikes, also fit well in dense walkable places. Federal, state and local governments should catch this wave.

Safe infrastructure, parking and incentives

If we’re going to invest public dollars in electric transportation, e-micromobility is a place where we can get equity, environment and smart growth outcomes along with emissions reduction. How do we do it? It comes down to three overarching strategies: safe bike infrastructure, encouraging people to buy and use e-bikes, and creating parking solutions that work for this unique form of transportation.

1. Safe bike infrastructure

Unsafe streets are likely the biggest impediment to e-bike adoption. Safe streets for cycling have always made sense, but the enormous potential of e-bikes is one more reason to invest in these networks. 

Piecemeal efforts with only paint are not enough. We need Complete Streets policies and standards, taking bike accessibility into account with every investment. These policies and standards need to be strong enough to build bike networks that are protected from cars and trucks and connected to destinations. This can and should be applied at every level of government.

2. Encouraging people to buy and use e-bikes

Many states and cities are rolling out e-bike purchase incentive programs to good effect. This makes sense. E-bikes deliver all the benefits discussed above, and they’re much more affordable than cars. For a typical public subsidy on an electric car, you could purchase an e-bike outright. 

Because of their price tag, getting e-bikes and e-cargo bikes into the hands of families that can’t afford a car is a big transportation equity move. People for Bikes’ E-Bike Incentive Design Tool provides guidance for states and cities looking to launch a local program. At the federal level, Congress should pass the E-BIKE Act and help deserving families acquire e-bikes nationwide.

Bikeshare programs are also seeing a lot of success in delivering clean, healthy, space-efficient mobility while exposing more people to the magic of electric bikes. Bikeshare and electric scooter sharing programs are a great complement to public transit, as they can help close first- and last-mile gaps in people’s commutes and give people an additional option for getting around on nights or weekends when transit runs less frequently. Shared micromobility also provides access to these options for people who can’t afford their own e-bike or don’t have a place to store it. Governments at all levels should view shared micromobility as fundamentally a form of public transit and support it with public investment.

To support shared micromobility in the near term, we need a “dig once” approach to installing charging infrastructure for shared micromobility and EV charging infrastructure. That is, when we install charging infrastructure for cars, we should seek opportunities to co-locate car charging infrastructure with charging for shared micromobility. The North America Bikeshare and Scootershare Association (NABSA, a member of the CHARGE coalition that T4America co-leads) recently released a report on co-locating EV and micromobility charging which decision-makers should take heed of. While the Biden Administration’s Joint Office on Energy and Transportation talks a lot about multimodalism, Community Charging Grants in the infrastructure law’s Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) program currently only fund car charging. Really, all federally funded charging infrastructure should be built to charge bikes and scooters too.

3. Parking considerations

E-bikes are heavier and more expensive than regular bikes, and their batteries need to be charged. These differences mean that parking for e-bikes requires special consideration. E-bike parking, especially overnight, needs to be secure. Parking facilities in places like apartment buildings and workplaces need to have level entry, and can’t require the owner to lift the bike onto a hook. Accommodating space for cargo bikes is also becoming more important. Most e-bikes have removable batteries that can be charged in the home or at your desk, so charging in the bike room might not be entirely necessary. Local governments will have to develop bike parking standards that take these special considerations into account and JOET can assist by developing guidance.

The bottom line

The investments needed for us to catch the e-bike wave are relatively modest compared to the pay-off. If we succeed, we’ll be sitting on top of the world! Following the strategies outlined above can help maximize the potential of this small but mighty form of electric transportation.

In our EV blog series, we’ve shared strategies in the zero-emission fleet transition which work in concert with smart growth. These strategies can both advance the EV transition and reduce the need to drive so much. They include electric carshare services, charger-oriented development, the NEVI program, equitable access to chargers, integrating smart parking policy with EV-charging, and electric micromobility. To learn more about reducing transportation emissions, check out our report Driving Down Emissions and go here to learn more about CHARGE, the coalition we co-lead on EV issues.

Don’t curb your e-thusiasm: Charging and the curb

An electric scooter charges at the curb in front of a warmly lit storefront at night

Electric vehicle charging at the curb presents unique challenges to meet equity, accessibility, and eligibility for federal programs.

An electric scooter charges at the curb in front of a warmly lit storefront at night

An electric vehicle fast-charging point in Hyderabad, Telangana, India, which can charge all types of electric vehicles. Photo by Ather Energy on Unsplash

In our last post in this series on integrating the electric vehicle (EV) transition and smart growth, we talked about the reality that many apartment dwellers will lack access to at-home charging in the foreseeable future, whether because the parking for their building doesn’t have charging, or they don’t have at-home parking. Charging at the curb will be important to meet the needs of these residents as well as folks away from home who need a charge.

In our EV blog series, we’ve shared strategies in the zero-emission fleet transition which work in concert with smart growth. These strategies can both advance the EV transition and reduce the need to drive so much. They include electric carshare services, charger-oriented development, the NEVI program, equitable access to chargers, integrating smart parking policy with EV-charging, and electric micromobility. To learn more about reducing transportation emissions, check out our report Driving Down Emissions and go here to learn more about CHARGE, the coalition we co-lead on EV issues.

Charging is parking

As we look to integrate EV charging in smart growth communities, inevitably we need to come to terms with the profound implications of our approach to parking. EV charging is, after all, a form of parking. Once we are talking about parking, we must address the inescapable fact that misguided parking policies have, over decades, pushed destinations further apart, leaving communities less walkable, hollowing out downtowns, and creating longer trip times for everyone.

Reforming American parking policy has been the subject of several books, including the foundational treatise The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup, and the more recently influential Paved Paradise by Henry Grabar. The consensus among parking reformers is that communities must eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements to allow more affordable and denser development. Managing on-street parking—with parking meters, permits, or other time-limiting features—can also pave the way for more sustainable development patterns while still making it reasonably easy to find a parking space. Fees collected in a given neighborhood can be re-invested in improved streetscapes or used to fund clean transportation options like public transit or bikeshare.

We know that the curb, as the access point to everything off-street, has additional value beyond just parking. Loading zones for passengers and goods, parklets, streateries, bike lanes, bus lanes, bike parking, bikeshare stations and more, are all potential uses for limited curb space. Many of these uses rose to greater prominence during the pandemic and have stuck around. Now we’re adding curbside EV charging to an already crowded interface.

This all adds up to the need to be thoughtful about how we place and price curbside EV charging stations. Communities should be careful to place curbside chargers where they don’t preclude other uses that enhance smart growth livability. This means curbside chargers would likely be better-placed on quiet residential side streets and municipal garages, rather than major commercial corridors in denser urban areas. This way, they won’t get in the way of the other curbside uses that enrich smart growth livability. 

But we shouldn’t stop there. Below are several ways to think about curbside EV-charging, including what Congress and the Biden administration should do to fix current programs to give local governments the flexibility to better address these issues.

1. Pricing

Before making any decisions around pricing, cities should take account of the curb space available. How much space needs to be set aside for other important curb uses, like bike lanes, bus lanes, and streateries? The remaining space will be available for vehicle parking (and charging). 

These parking spaces should be regulated and priced for 85 percent occupancy. At that occupancy level, usage is maximized with enough turnover that there’s pretty much always a parking spot available on every block face. That is ideal to maximize drivers’ access to the curb and businesses’ access to customers. 

EV-charging in denser urban environments where space is at a premium adds another consideration into the mix. A charging spot has value for access to the neighborhood AND access to charging. Cities will need to right-price charging in these highly desirable locations to get outcomes that maximize the use of the chargers—and also achieve appropriate turnover access to the curb. To accomplish this, they may need to charge for both parking and charging in the same spot.

Finally, it’s important to note that the federal government’s primary program for investing in charging infrastructure in communities—the Community Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) program’s Community Charging and Fueling Grants—allows pricing for both parking and charging for curb sites, but unfortunately not for parking lots. In dense neighborhoods and downtowns with lots of demand for the curb, a gated municipal garage may be the most sensible place for chargers. The program needs to be fixed so that cities have the flexibility they need to apply the appropriate price in the appropriate location—as long as it’s transparent, simple and seamless for the user.

2. Opportunism

We’re in the early stages of the EV transition, and we need to accelerate if we’re to reduce transportation emissions fast enough to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Since access to charging is one of the biggest impediments to drivers purchasing EVs, we need to get a bunch of it out there quickly and cheaply. It makes sense right now to be opportunistic and take advantage of existing grid infrastructure, even as we know we need to invest in the grid to build a more substantial charging network.

There’s a lot we can do quickly. For one, some EV owners are charging their cars at the curb with a cord that runs from their house across the sidewalk. Cities like Portland have adopted rules to allow Level 1 charging from house to curb as long as the cord runs through an ADA-compliant cord cover across the sidewalk. This can be a good way to quickly provide more access to charging for those without off-street parking, as long as residents aren’t misled to think they own the public parking in front of their house.

Cities are also looking at ways to deliver curbside, public, Level 2 charging using existing grid infrastructure. Los Angeles and other cities have been installing Level 2 chargers at streetlights. The electricity service is already there, so it’s a great place to put one or two charger ports. The private company Itselectric has developed a technique for using spare capacity in buildings fronting the street to install a Level 2 charger at the curb.

Federal programs are failing to support any of these opportunistic solutions. The Community Charging Grants arbitrarily require all charging stations funded by the program to have four ports. This precludes funding for the sensible, quick solutions above. It also reflects a gas station mindset of having a bunch of charging in a centralized location. As we discussed in the post in this series on Charger Oriented Development, this approach fails to maximize the potential of EV-charging. When all you need is access to a plug, especially for Level 1 and Level 2 charging, there is no reason why we can’t have charging infrastructure distributed more diffusely in the urban environment.

The bottom line

Communities are navigating brand new territory as they figure out what works best for public charging in their communities. New ideas and challenges will continue to emerge, and consensus on the most urgent needs will evolve as the EV transition continues to gain momentum. Public agencies will need to be flexible and nimble for us to get the most out of investments in public charging.

Road feels unsafe? DOT says prove it!

An adult and small child cross the street at night without a crosswalk while cars approach

In the United States, where and how traffic deaths occur are painfully predictable. But even with historically high levels of funding available, traffic engineering standards and federal policy combine to create a safety catch-22, ensuring that a transportation agency walking the walk on traffic safety is the exception, not the rule.

An adult and small child cross the street at night without a crosswalk while cars approach

Photo by Nk Ni via Unsplash

If you’re somebody who walks or rolls to get to work, school, or any of your other daily needs, chances are that you know the most dangerous parts of your local transportation system: the crosswalk that cars don’t stop at because there’s no light, the bike lane that ends abruptly, or the sidewalk ramp pointed to the middle of an intersection instead of the crosswalk. When you go through these areas, you might think that they’re oversights, mistakes made by an inattentive traffic engineer or planner who would make the adjustment needed if they just walked or rolled a mile in your shoes. But in reality, these flaws are part and parcel of a broader system that requires either reckless behavior or deaths to make the case for safety.

Instead of proactively asserting a right for people to walk and roll safely and conveniently outside of a vehicle, the standards that DOTs use to determine when and where they put safety infrastructure actually require people to either risk their bodies or experience harm before any paint or concrete are poured.

Transportation for America is a program of Smart Growth America, an organization that empowers communities through technical assistance, advocacy, and thought leadership to realize our vision of livable places, healthy people, and shared prosperity. See how Smart Growth America is engaging with National Pedestrian Safety Month here.

The safety infrastructure catch-22

One hot summer morning in 2021, I went to an unsignalized intersection in Northern Virginia and watched people wait for a break in traffic to cross a road that was 60-feet wide, dividing homes and a bus stop from a food bank. Though state law makes it legal for people to cross on foot at unsignalized intersections, it’s obviously a risky, unsafe thing to do.

Google Maps screenshot of Fordson Road, Alexandria, VA at 7558 Fordson Road, showing three lanes of traffic and no marked crosswalk

Unsignalized intersection on Fordson Road in Alexandria, VA

But this is the catch-22: For the state DOT (VDOT) to paint a crosswalk there, they require that at least 20 people choose to cross that dangerous street each hour.1 Put another way, if enough people engage in risky, unsafe behaviors, the state might decide to make it safer. But when it’s unsafe to walk and roll, fewer people are going to do so. And with fewer people walking and rolling, DOTs like VDOT think that there’s little demand for safe infrastructure. 

This unproductive cycle is the product of street design standards and manuals that your local traffic engineer relies on and navigates in order to make their decisions. In some cases, as NACTO says about the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), it can actually “require multiple people to die at an intersection before a pedestrian signal is ‘warranted’.”

Why did the pedestrian cross the road?

The people who pay the price for this nonsense approach to safety are people like Filadelfo Ramos Marquez.  Filadelfo was killed in December 2021 while crossing an eight-lane road in Tysons Corner, Virginia. Those responsible for the street’s design can choose to blame the victim for not using a crosswalk as a way of abdicating their responsibility, or they can ask: why did he cross where he did, and how do we make it safer?

Google Maps screenshot of VA-123, showing the pedestrian bridge in the background connecting to the metro station on the right. A car enters the roadway through a slip lane. There are at least six lanes of traffic shown.

Road conditions where Filadelfo was hit and killed.

Although this intersection has traffic lights, the only way to cross it on foot is via a pedestrian bridge. However, when the metro station that the bridge connects to closes, so does the bridge itself. If Filadelfo thought that the station was already closed at 9 p.m., or that he had to pay a metro fare in order to use the bridge, then he had two choices: cross where he did, or add a third of a mile to his trip in order to use a painted crosswalk.

This leads us to the broader point: We do not currently measure OR care about the travel time of people who walk and roll. Pedestrians’ time isn’t just worth less than that of drivers, it’s not measured at all. In VDOT’s standards for an unmarked crosswalk at an unsignalized intersection, like the one I went to in summer 2021, the agency effectively says (starting on page A4) that saving pedestrians time is fine, so long as it doesn’t affect too many drivers.

The intersection where Filadelfo was hit, with signals for cars but no accommodations at all for pedestrians, illustrates this biased tradeoff just the same. When this metro station was built, planners and engineers could’ve viewed it as an opportunity to improve the pedestrian experience, both around this one stop and along this entire corridor where crosswalks are routinely over 130 feet long. Seeing as Tysons Corner has two huge shopping malls, is one of the largest job centers in Virginia, and aims to be home to 100,000 residents by 2050, some might say this would’ve been prudent. But that would have required deprioritizing the 46,000 vehicles per day that drove here pre-pandemic. So instead of building the much shorter, much less expensive straight-line street-level crossing, they built the longer, more expensive pedestrian bridge. And now, instead of asking why pedestrians like Filadelfo still choose to cross roads like this, DOTs like VDOT simply pray they don’t.

A Google Maps aerial screenshot showing Filadelfo's route on the day of the crash. An orange line routes along the sidewalk and crosswalk, showing the loop he would've had to make to be as safe as possible if the pedestrian bridge was closed. A green line shows the route using the pedestrian bridge. A red line shows the route Filadelfo took, cutting through several lanes of high-speed traffic, just to the west of bridge.

Potential pedestrian routes in the area where Filadelfo was hit and killed. The green line shows the path using the pedestrian bridge that connects to the metro station. The orange line shows the route to the only marked crosswalk nearby. The red line and white arrow show Filadelfo’s route and the general area where he was hit.

The safety funding catch-22

One reason agencies seem to prefer the thoughts and prayers approach to traffic safety is that federal policy encourages them to. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) poured over $400 billion into roads and streets across the United States, but with few requirements for anyone to measurably improve safety. Although all of that money could be used to ensure the safety of all road users, most of it won’t be. 

Instead, in exchange for billions in largely flexible formula grants they control, states are required to set safety performance targets each year. But the reality is almost laughable: states can literally set targets for more people to die without penalty, and there is almost no penalty for failing to meet even the most unambitious targets. Failing to meet targets just requires those states to spend their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) dollars on highway safety improvement projects. And if vulnerable road users (VRUs) make up more than fifteen percent of all fatalities in a state, that state has to spend fifteen percent of their HSIP funds the next year on safety projects for VRUs. (However, most states aren’t even obligating all the safety funds they need to.)

In contrast, if local governments want to access funds specifically earmarked for safety, they usually have to spend time and money applying for competitive discretionary grants, like the Safe Streets and Roads for All program. Although this is better than nothing, and there’s additional marginal progress being made, the IIJA has the same double standard for safety that it does for climate: projects that improve safety are the exception, whereas projects that don’t are the rule.

And so long as making streets safer comes with tangible costs but traffic deaths do not, people will pay with their lives. The day before Filadelfo was struck, Matthew Jaeger was killed while riding a bike a few miles down that very same road. 

To get to the other side

Changes need to come from the top down and the bottom up. Congress needs to stop creating small new programs for improving safety. After giving them billions to spend, Congress should hold states accountable for reducing fatalities. For states that fail to do so, this could mean requiring them to transfer money out of block grant programs (like the the National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation Block Grants) and move it to HSIP for every year that they don’t meet their targets. 

USDOT can finish updating the MUTCD and improving the Green Book. In the meantime, if states can prove these documents interfere with achieving safety targets due to their erroneous assumption that speed is safety, USDOT should waive these design standards. The agency can also ensure regulations like the New Car Assessment Program look at how the weight, size, visibility, and marketing of vehicles keeps all road users safe. 

States control the most dangerous streets, and they stay dangerous because states continue to prioritize speed and vehicle throughput over safety—as with the corridor that killed Matthew and Filadelfo. States actually addressing this danger would see immediate results in pedestrian safety.

And while cities press their states for action on the deadly state-owned arterial roads within their borders, they are free to make the streets they do control safer. They can pass Complete Streets policies, discarding their state’s speed-first design guidelines, and adopt modern street design guidance that prioritizes moving people and creating safe streets for everyone. (The IIJA made a vital change to allow cities to adopt NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide, even if their state prohibits it.)

Anything less than these changes isn’t prioritizing safety. It’s just a catch-22.

Find more recommendations to make our roadways safer in Dangerous by Design.

Charging up EVs: Bridging the apartment gap

A woman leans against her EV while it charges outside of an apartment building

With the electric vehicle transition, access to transportation options like transit, walking and biking needs to come first. But—for smart growth and equity—equitable access to charging for apartment dwelling car-owners is an essential part of the picture.

A woman leans against her EV while it charges outside of an apartment building

In our EV blog series, we’ve shared strategies in the zero-emission fleet transition which work in concert with smart growth. These strategies can both advance the EV transition and reduce the need to drive so much. They include electric carshare services, charger-oriented development, the NEVI program, equitable access to chargers, integrating smart parking policy with EV-charging, and electric micromobility. To learn more about reducing transportation emissions, check out our report Driving Down Emissions and go here to learn more about CHARGE, the coalition we co-lead on EV issues.

Much of the group-think around the transition to electric vehicles comes from the picture in many people’s heads of the suburban built form, where every house is a detached single family home with its own garage where the electric vehicle (EV) sits charging.

Guess what? Not everyone lives in a single family home. If we’re going to integrate the EV transition with smart growth, and make it more equitable, we have to make sure people living in apartments have access to great mobility options. Apartments are good for smart growth, and low income and Black and Brown communities disproportionately rely on them for housing. So, if we want to advance smart growth and equity, there shouldn’t be a mobility penalty for living in apartments. Let’s talk about how to approach this issue.

Don’t: Require parking

For some EV enthusiasts, it’s tempting to focus on EVs first and start with the idea that apartment buildings should be required to have plenty of parking with access to an EV charger in every spot. Not so fast! Parking requirements significantly increase the cost of housing, make it difficult to create walkable environments, and incentivize car ownership and driving which increases emissions.

There is not enough space here to lay out all the problems with off-street parking requirements. Go here, here and here to learn how these outdated and misguided regulations increase housing costs, hamper efforts to create more walkable neighborhoods, generate traffic and more. Suffice to say that the best practice is to eliminate off-street parking requirements, allow the market to determine the number of parking spaces, and focus public standards and investment on biking and walking infrastructure and transit service.

Eliminating off-street parking requirements won’t change the world overnight. In most communities and particularly car-centric ones, developers will build apartments with parking even if they aren’t required to, and many residents will still own cars. Recognizing that it takes some time for communities to become less car-reliant, we need to address charging, the biggest impediment to the EV transition. 

However, we don’t need to perpetuate the misguided parking policies of the past and the sprawl they generate. There are better approaches than parking requirements for ensuring people have the mobility choices they need including access to a car. For example, incentivizing or encouraging the integration of EV carshare service with low-car development is a great way to give a lot of folks access to a car on the occasions they need it.

Do: Require parking to be EV-ready

When a municipality eliminates minimum off-street parking requirements, builders still put parking in many of their projects. These buildings will be around for 50 years or more, and we need to be at zero emissions by 2050. With EV adoption doubling every two years, we’re risking a drastic shortfall of charging options for apartment dwellers much sooner, one that could see apartment dwellers relegated to gas-powered cars.

One of the benefits of EVs (if you can charge at home) is that you never have to go somewhere to fuel up unless you are driving more than your car’s range in a single day. Since American drivers cover an average of 37 miles each day, and less than one percent of trips exceed 100 miles, EVs are much more convenient and much more affordable to fuel than ICE vehicles, if you have at-home charging. 

For EV-owners who can’t charge at home, convenient, affordable, publicly accessible neighborhood charging is really important. We’ll talk in greater detail about getting public charging right in the next blog in this series. However, it’s worth noting that of the $7.5 billion in the infrastructure law dedicated to public charging, 83 percent is dedicated to fast chargers out by the highway, leaving comparably few resources for public charging that serves those who can’t charge at home. This is very inequitable.

It’s pretty clear that all new residential parking spaces constructed from now on should have charging options. The cost of running electricity to parking as a retrofit is orders of magnitude more expensive, so we need to make sure any parking serving residential built today is EV-ready. In short, don’t require parking, but require parking to be EV-ready.

What is EV readiness?

Our partners at EV Charging for All have just released an EV Building Codes Toolkit  on this piece of the puzzle—how building codes should dictate EV readiness for parking in newly-constructed apartments:

  1. If you have parking, you should have access to charging—period. Every housing unit that has parking needs to have access to charging in at least one parking spot.
  2. Low level 2 charging is good enough, and can be provided via a receptacle/outlet. The meters need to be set up so that electric use can be easily billed directly to the resident. This prevents middlemen from charging a surcharge on apartment residents, saves the building manager from the hassle of figuring out how to bill appropriately for electricity use, and allows multi-family residents to benefit from future ‘vehicle-to-home’ resilience measures (where the EV battery can provide backup for the apartment if the grid goes down).
  3. Get the word out. Install prominent signage so residents know the spaces are EV-ready.

While this is the right approach for new buildings, remodeling existing buildings to provide access to charging is going to be challenging and necessary. Currently, multifamily property owners are eligible for the same Inflation Reduction Act 30 percent tax credit for installing charging infrastructure as home-owners. Decision-makers should keep an eye on how this program performs to determine whether the challenges of charging access for apartment dwellers warrant a bigger incentive for existing apartment buildings.

The big picture

Municipalities can aid in the EV transition by ensuring that parking is EV-ready, while also supporting other publicly accessible, equitably priced charging options, which we’ll describe in further detail in our next blog in this series. They don’t need to require that more parking be built in order to support EV users—and in fact, building more parking could take us further from our emissions goals.

Congress and the administration can do a lot to support this approach. The Joint Office on Energy and Transportation (JOET) could develop guidance and sample building codes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development could include EV readiness as a criterion when prioritizing affordable housing investments. Besides fundamentally re-orienting the transportation program from highway expansion to better support transit, walking, and biking infrastructure, Congress could support JOET’s work on guidance and provide support for low-income multifamily housing projects to incorporate clean mobility options like EV carshare and affordable EV charging.

Final grant clears the way to restore Gulf Coast passenger rail service

Last week’s announcement of a $178 million federal grant to make track and infrastructure improvements along the Gulf Coast rail corridor represents the last major funding hurdle to restoring passenger rail service from New Orleans to Mobile, AL.

Residents of Mobile welcomed the Amtrak inspection train during a stop in February 2016. They are close to getting their wish.

It’s been a long journey.

Seven years ago in February, a special Amtrak inspection train rolled along the Gulf Coast corridor to both preview the route and build support for restoring passenger service that was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, nearly 11 years earlier. Making brief, 10-minute stops in Gulf Coast towns along the way, it was greeted by thousands of cheering residents clamoring for passenger rail to return. I was there in 2016, and—a little overwhelmed by the level of support—I wrote about seeing “rich people, poor people, black people, white people, young people, old people — all asking their elected leaders for the same thing: We want passenger rail back on the Gulf Coast.”

The last major funding barrier has been breached. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker last week announced a $178.4 million federal grant to make a litany of infrastructure investments in the corridor, including track, sidings, signals, new platforms, and other improvements. We’re not quite at the end yet, but this grant caps off a decade of work by the Southern Rail Commission, local and state advocates, and Transportation for America.

These improvements will allow new passenger service to start up in the first quarter of 2024, hopefully in time for Mardi Gras. Once launched, there will be two trains daily between New Orleans and Mobile, with stops in: 

Bay St. Louis…

the backs of women in colorful wigs and costumes looking at amtrak train in background

Gulfport…

wide shot showing big crowd of people with parking garage behind and amtrak train at left

Biloxi…

wide shot of big crowd at railroad crossing in biloxi

and Pascagoula.

closeups of people, some with signs reading "Amtrak - welcome back to Pascagoula"

About the grant

The grant is from the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program, which was created in the FAST Act (federal transportation authorization) in 2015. To secure federal funding for this specific project in a post-earmark world, T4America helped create a new national program to support it and other necessary infrastructure improvements for passenger service across the country. Washington state, California, Florida, and the District of Columbia also received CRISI grants in this batch.

The CRISI grant is the last major funding domino to fall, but everyone involved has committed resources along the way, which is perhaps the most important lesson from this story: The effort was both top-down and bottom-up. Partnerships across jurisdictions, state lines, and party lines made it possible.  At the very center of that effort is our work with the Southern Rail Commission, a Congressionally established tri-state rail compact with members appointed by the governors of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. 

Mississippi and Louisiana were out front early, committing state money to match these federal grants. Norfolk Southern, CSX, the Port of Mobile, and Amtrak also committed money to the CRISI application to complete the required match. Amtrak is training crew and preparing equipment for running the new service. This is actually not the first CRISI grant awarded to the project, and another federal grant received years ago will help cover start-up operations costs (from the Restoration and Enhancement grant program.)

What’s next for Gulf Coast rail? 

Most of this grant will go toward immediate construction on improving the right-of-way and sidings on trackage owned and used by CSX and Norfolk Southern freight railroads, improving on-time performance. Amtrak is paying for the ADA-accessible platform and siding in Mobile out of their own pocket, but if Mobile wants a proper station, they will either have to build it themselves or apply for one of the available grants for doing so. All the infrastructure work will have to be done in partnership with the freight railroads, so leaders in influential places will be leaning on them to get this vital work done as fast as possible.

These new infrastructure improvements are the last barrier standing in the way of people buying a ticket and riding the rails on the Gulf Coast once again. We expect to see trains running in spring 2024.

Win after win

The last eight years have been a tremendous success for new investments in passenger rail across the country. This effort in the Gulf Coast—and its champions like Senator Wicker—have created new opportunities and federal programs (like CRISI) that are having an impact all across the country. 

We’re looking forward to detailing the longer, full story of T4America’s decades-long quest to restore Gulf Coast passenger rail in some future posts so other regions can learn from their example. There are numerous benefits to expanding and improving passenger rail service, which is precisely why T4America (and Smart Growth America) have focused on it over the years. It’s a great way to better connect residents to opportunity, expand their economies, lower emissions and protect the climate, and provide another clean, efficient option for getting around—all things which are at the heart of our collective mission. 

All photos by Steve Davis / Transportation for America

Inverting the IIJA’s double standard

Aerial image of a complicated highway interchange in Phoenix Arizona.

The IIJA and IRA are hailed as landmark pieces of climate legislation. Unfortunately, by prioritizing the status quo of flexibility and formula status for highway projects, the IIJA is set to see the gains of any individual emissions-reducing projects go up in smoke.

Aerial image of a complicated highway interchange in Phoenix Arizona.

When the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was passed two years ago, it was hailed as the biggest investment in our nation’s infrastructure in decades and included flexible funding that states and metro areas could use toward climate initiatives. When followed by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) last year, the first two years of the Biden presidency were described as making monumental gains on climate policy.

Unfortunately, as illuminated by an article this summer in the Washington Post, it’s clear that—on the transportation front at least— rhetoric is falling short of reality. The laws, frequently touted by legislators and administration officials as important means to reduce greenhouse gasses and slow climate change, while also providing funding for resiliency efforts, are set to do neither. Projects for private cars are getting the most money with the fewest strings—while transit, traffic safety, ADA accessibility, and other projects that could actually reduce emissions compete to share less money with more strings.

These laws are not a newfound paragon of sustainability and resilience. It’s the same double standard that got us into a climate crisis in the first place.

Some good money after a lot of bad money

The transportation sector accounts for a plurality of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (28%), and every single attempt to add capacity to a highway—or increase the number of cars it can carry by widening it—increases these emissions. This is because of a concept known as induced demand, which is essentially the “if you build it, they will come” of transportation. As demonstrated by Transportation for America’s jointly-produced SHIFT Calculator, even adding a single lane mile of principal arterial roadway can lead to tens of thousands of additional gallons of gas being burned per year.

Unfortunately, these are exactly the types of projects that the IIJA allows states to spend money on. Out of over $600 billion dollars set aside for surface transportation, two-thirds is reserved for traditional highway programs. This includes over $200 billion combined for the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). Even if the $14 billion in two climate programs cited by the Washington Post weren’t being raided by states across the country (for projects that should be funded with NHPP and STBG dollars), it would still be dwarfed several times over by funding reserved for capacity expansion projects.

Putting the cart(e Blanche) before the horse

This discrepancy between how projects for cars and projects for all other transportation modes get treated extends beyond how much funding these programs receive to how those funds are distributed. The NHPP and STBG are formula programs which means that the amount line on these checks may already be filled in, but the memo line is effectively empty. States can use these pots of money to build new roads, make resiliency improvements, and build intercity bus terminals, among a long list of potential projects that include undergrounding utilities and controlling invasive plant life. Based on what they’ve done with the money that was specifically supposed to go to reducing emissions and increasing climate resiliency, I’ll let you guess what they continue to choose to spend this money on. (Hint: most of the arterial roads I grew up driving on are lined by above-ground power lines and kudzu-covered trees.)

In contrast, localities and states aren’t given the same carte blanche to reduce emissions. With the exception of emergency COVID relief funding, transit agencies receive effectively no funding for their operations. To build streets safe enough to walk or roll on, renovate transit stations so they’re accessible to people with disabilities, or improve the infrastructure of their transit systems so they can carry more people, many local and regional governments have to go through competitive grant application processes. And even when emission reductions get money through formula programs they often contain the exact loopholes discussed in the Washington Post, allowing their money to be moved to projects that increase emissions.

Flexibility is not a climate solution

This doesn’t mean that making infrastructure funding flexible or having competitive grant programs are inherently bad policy choices. Alaska and Florida are drastically different places with drastically different transportation needs, and it’s good to verify that projects are set up to succeed before spending significant amounts of money on them.

But transportation policy that provides endless flexibility and ensures that most transit, active transportation, and accessibility projects have to compete with other proposed projects to access federal funds is incompatible with climate goals. For decades, state DOTs have been focused on building more and more infrastructure for private cars at the expense of every other possible mode of transportation—if we give them a choose-your-own-adventure program like the NHPP and STBG, the adventure they’re going to choose is more lane miles and more emissions. That’s exactly what Transportation for America feared would take place with the IIJA—despite the significant progress in areas like passenger rail—and what the Washington Post confirmed has happened to just a small portion of the money that’s made its way from USDOT to the states. 

To reduce emissions from the transportation sector, we have to recognize that flexibility alone is not a climate solution. When it comes to climate, the goal of good transportation policy must be to make it easier to complete projects that reduce emissions and more difficult to complete projects that increase emissions. That means inverting how much we fund different modes of transportation, so that transit, active transportation, and passenger rail projects get the majority of funds, instead of highways. That also means inverting how these funds are accessed, so transit, active transportation, and passenger rail projects are funded by formula dollars, and highway projects are forced to apply to competitive grant programs. 

Why NEVI needs an upgrade

The $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program is an important investment in the build-out of the nation’s EV charging infrastructure, but decision makers are moving forward with the same old approach. The program’s strict one-mile rule and a preference for gas stations and truck stops are a missed opportunity for investments that should prioritize flexibility, equity, and local communities.

A black sedan charges near a large building

In our EV blog series, we’ve shared strategies in the zero-emission fleet transition which work in concert with smart growth. These strategies can both advance the EV transition and reduce the need to drive so much. They include electric carshare services, charger-oriented development, the NEVI program, equitable access to chargers, integrating smart parking policy with EV-charging, and electric micromobility. To learn more about reducing transportation emissions, check out our report Driving Down Emissions and go here to learn more about CHARGE, the coalition we co-lead on EV issues.

Congress’s and the Biden administration’s down payment on electric vehicle charging 

In a previous post in this series on transportation electrification and smart growth, we talked about the concept of charger-oriented development and argued that electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure should be located in vibrant places that have an abundance of diverse businesses and attractions easily accessible within walking distance. Most EV drivers will be able to charge overnight and rarely need to refuel on a trip. However, when they do need to refuel mid-trip, it takes at least 20 minutes for EV vehicles to recharge, even when using DC Fast Chargers. During that time charging or waiting for a charger, travelers will only have access to their immediate surroundings within a walkable distance. While gas stations have grown efficient at serving cars stopping for 5 minutes or less, their auto-oriented environment will leave electrified travelers, stuck in places with very little to do.

Already, surveyed EV users recognize boredom while charging as an impediment to their experience, potentially slowing their adoption. By locating new EV chargers in existing downtowns, town centers, and main streets, federal policy has the chance to align equity, local economic development, and climate goals. Siting chargers at locations built for cars, like gas stations, not only introduces quality of life concerns but also safety concerns. These sites are often poorly lit and isolated from the public eye, fostering environments that lead many people to feel unsafe.

With $7.5 billion in funding for electric vehicle chargers, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) programs represent the United States’ down payment toward a national publicly accessible EV charging network. NEVI, a new $5 billion formula program, offers $1 billion per year for states to implement their own EV Charger deployment plans. The CFI program, a smaller $2.5 billion discretionary program, was made for smaller government organizations, such as counties and cities. Half of CFI funding will go to community-based chargers, and half will go to chargers less than one mile from designated Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC), highway routes designated for chargers.

Problematic requirements

Earlier this year, the federal government published final eligibility requirements for the NEVI and CFI programs, including rules on where NEVI chargers can be located. To be eligible for NEVI formula funding, chargers must be spaced at most 50 miles away from each other, be sited less than one mile away from an AFC, and have a minimum of four charging ports. States do not get flexibility with siting their federally funded EV Chargers until they are certified as “built out” by USDOT, meaning their entire statewide network fulfills these requirements.

Strict adherence to the one-mile rule, which prioritizes minimizing travel time to a charging site, neglects that users will spend relatively little time getting to the charger compared to the time they will spend charging. NEVI’s one-mile rule limits a state’s opportunity to place chargers in areas that could be more comfortable for users, provide sustainable local economic development benefits, and advance climate and equity goals. Unfortunately, due to guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, states are being pushed toward an approach that is highway-oriented rather than driver-oriented, let alone people-oriented.

Missed opportunities

While all states have published their NEVI deployment plans, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Maine are the first to provide specific locations for the initial round of federally funded EV Chargers. Hawaii has also released sites but has not finalized exact locations. Based on what these states have shared, federal requirements are already creating barriers to equitable Charger Oriented Development that supports locally-owned businesses. Approximately three out of four EV charging sites proposed in this first round of awards have gone to truck stops and gas stations.

Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania is one of many communities in the US located just outside of the NEVI program’s maximum range from the highway. Once a major coal mining town, Mahanoy City’s main street starts 2 miles west of Pennsylvania’s I-81 Alternative Fuel Corridor and has a disadvantaged census tract. The city, recognized by the state governor for its recent financial recovery, is home to dozens of small businesses and small parks along its main corridor, a newly refurbished train station, and has been recognized for its growing population.

At just a little over 2 miles away from the highway exit, this vibrant area is reasonably close to the corridor but was ineligible for federally funded chargers under the NEVI program. Instead, PennDOT has so far prioritized awarding gas stations, convenience stores, truck stops, and travel centers, with little access to services other than those provided by the gas stations and convenience stores. Instead of locating the site in an area where EV users could exit their vehicles and contribute to local economies, the site that will serve this 50-mile stretch of I-81 near Mahanoy City will be located in a gas station with an attached fast food chain, at a location that the EPA’s Walkability Index defines as “least walkable,” among the lowest of all of Pennsylvania’s selected NEVI sites. On average, Pennsylvania DOT’s NEVI sites are extremely unfriendly to pedestrians with an average Walkscore of just 35 of 100.

A google maps view of PA-54 in downtown Mahonoy City, PA
Downtown Mahanoy City, PA was passed up as a fast-charging site because, at just 2 miles, it’s too far off the highway. Google Maps
A google map aerial view of roads, trees, parking lots, and large warehouses off I-81 in Pennsylvania
The location of a conditionally awarded NEVI site off of exit 119 off I-81 in Pennsylvania, yet to be photographed, in an area where travelers can access few services while their vehicle is charging. Google maps

Distance from an interstate highway exit is not the only obstacle to the development of federally supported charger-oriented developments. In Ohio DOT’s NEVI plans, charger sites were identified by their proximity to amenities – but those amenities were defined as truck stops, gas stations, and big box stores. Sites near a greater number of local businesses that provide more options for travelers, such as the walkable downtown of Logan, Ohio, will be skipped over in favor of truck stops out by the highway. 

Aerial photo of a five lane road and historic buildings in Logan, Ogio
Aerial photo of Main Street in Logan, Ohio, a vibrant, walkable area with small locally owned businesses. Ohio DOT’s NEVI deployment plans would consider this area as undesirable compared to a separate highway exit with a gas station and big box store. Image: Logan Town Center
Google map satellite image of a large parking lot with a wallmart, fast food, and other businesses
Satellite image of a NEVI Round 2 Candidate site off US-33, with several ‘favorable amenities,’ as identified by ODOT, few of which are locally owned. Image: Google Maps

The two examples above reflect a pattern. Based on Ohio DOT’s selected sites so far, the state is not capitalizing on the unique benefits that electric vehicle chargers could confer to both drivers and local communities. On average, Ohio DOT’s Round 1 sites have a Walkscore of just 27, signaling how isolated users will be. Choices to locate these chargers in areas so dependent on cars neglect the fact that everyone is a pedestrian once they exit their vehicle. With its intense focus on alleviating range anxiety, the NEVI program is recreating a transportation system that leaves the economic benefits that these federal investments could bring to disadvantaged and rural communities off the table.

You can explore our map of states’ initial NEVI sites, along with the Walkscore, Bikescore, and Transitscore of each location below. Pennsylvania DOT, Ohio DOT,  and Colorado DOT have announced a total of $64 million in funding for these sites. $47.5 million has been awarded to sites with a gas station or truck stop at the same address, reflecting a continued preference for the status quo. 

Announced NEVI Sites

We color-coded each announced NEVI site according to each site’s Walkscore. Red means a Walkscore of 0-50, Yellow means 50-69, and scores of 70 and above are Green.

The Biden administration often states that the goal of the NEVI and CFI programs is to electrify the great American road trip, but the current implementation seems to forget that road trips are also about the journey, not just the destination. Providing greater flexibility in the NEVI program to promote Charger Oriented Development would be a powerful way for the administration to meet its equity goals, promote a superior travel experience, and support local economic development while building out a national charging network. 

Recommendations

An image showing do not walk signs with a gas station complex in the background
The state of the sidewalk near a conditionally awarded NEVI site in Washington, Pennsylvania. Google Maps

Congress can better account for the difference between charging an EV and fueling an internal combustion engine vehicle by directing the Federal Highway Administration and US Department of Transportation to loosen the one-mile requirement in the NEVI and CFI programs. This is an important opportunity for members of Congress with rural communities in their districts to make sure the EV revolution benefits their constituents. Meanwhile, the Joint Office on Energy and Transportation (JOET) should develop rules and guidance that encourage state DOTs to practice Charger Oriented Development by siting charging stations in places where travelers can access more opportunities while the car is charging.

Leave the gas station behind: How charger-oriented development can lead to a greener future

Two men stand, chatting, beside a car while it's getting plugged in to charge.

Charging an EV is fundamentally different from fueling a gas-powered car. It’s time to co-locate charging infrastructure with existing communities in an approach we call charger-oriented development.

One man charging his white EV while speaking to another man wearing glasses

In our EV blog series, we’ve shared strategies in the zero-emission fleet transition which work in concert with smart growth. These strategies can both advance the EV transition and reduce the need to drive so much. They include electric carshare services, charger-oriented development, the NEVI program, equitable access to chargers, integrating smart parking policy with EV-charging, and electric micromobility. To learn more about reducing transportation emissions, check out our report Driving Down Emissions and go here to learn more about CHARGE, the coalition we co-lead on EV issues.

With the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act and 2021 infrastructure law in full swing, transportation electrification is taking off faster than ever. Congress is pouring billions of federal dollars into states’ National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) programs to electrify American cars, but those dollars are falling into a familiar pattern.

While electric vehicle charging infrastructure has distinct advantages over traditional gas stations, certain restrictions in NEVI standards and plans fail to imagine ways to invest in communities beyond the suburban gas station and sprawl-inducing big box store. The advantages (and even supposed disadvantages) of EV charging offer up opportunities to create vibrant, thriving places, but to unlock these benefits, policymakers need to rethink the pitstop.

Charging an electric vehicle differs significantly from the traditional fueling experience. In an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, drivers start the day with the same amount of gas that they had the day before. EVs may take more time to charge, but people with home charging options can start with a full battery and charge at destinations. However, on the rare occasions you do need to stop and charge, it’s going to take 20 minutes or more—not the three-to-five minutes it takes to tank up an ICE vehicle. This has big implications for where we put charging stations and what should be around them.

Charger-oriented development (COD) is the strategy of locating charging infrastructure in vibrant places that have an abundance of diverse opportunities easily accessible within walking distance. This could be on a rural town’s Main Street, town square, or a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use urban neighborhood. In these places, the driver can do something worthwhile with their valuable time, and local businesses benefit from new patrons bolstering the local economy.

Flipping the script

Many people are familiar with the concept of transit-oriented development (TOD): build up and densify around stops and corridors as much as possible and reap the benefits of walkability around transit. To implement that same smart growth approach with EV charging, you need to flip the script. Chargers should be oriented in walkable areas, in ways that contribute to local economies.

As we’ve said, most EV owners will charge at home overnight, or at other destinations, so they will only need access to a DC fast charger (DCFC, also called a level 3 charger) on longer trips. Once they plug in, what do they do? Do they sit in their car at the truck stop out by the highway, or are there multiple businesses they can patronize like cafes, restaurants, and stores? Perhaps there is a nearby park where the kids can let off steam. Ideally, the charger is in a place they were going anyway—the museum or the arena, for example.

Charging up local economies

Charger location also has implications for the local economy, particularly in rural communities. Businesses on Main Street are much more likely to be locally owned than the truckstop or the big box store. Public investment that directs travelers’ dollars into local pockets builds local wealth and resilience.

You can see examples of this from Meeker, Colorado and Canton, New York in our Sparking Progress report, where local businesses have benefited directly from travelers stopping to charge up. Strong local businesses on a Main Street tend to support each other by creating a vibrant place that becomes attractive for more people to visit.

Invest in existing infrastructure

Everyone involved in discussions around charger infrastructure quickly learns the importance of utilities. You can’t build chargers without electric power, and level 3 chargers draw a lot of it. Fast charging, especially, takes a lot of juice. In fact, a federally compliant fast charging station with four ports can draw as much electricity as a small town. Bringing that kind of power to an area is expensive, which is why we need to think of ways to use the capacity we already have in the grid more effectively. This is a corollary to the principle we already follow with smart growth: invest in existing communities.

There are a number of strategies we can use to take advantage of existing utilities. For example, Los Angeles installs level 2 chargers where there are already streetlights. The private company ITSElectric has developed a strategy for delivering level 2 charging at the curb using excess capacity in buildings fronting the street. Power hungry level 3 chargers are more likely to require significant utility upgrades, but those upgrades could be easier to deliver in existing communities than in a remote location by the highway. In addition, electric utility upgrades today would be a valuable investment in rural communities’ electrified future.

Utilities aren’t the only essential infrastructure near EV chargers. Just as everyone is a pedestrian when they park their car, the same goes for someone charging their car. Pedestrian infrastructure is essential, and a Main Street or neighborhood is more likely to have sidewalks than the truck stop or big box store. In some cases, it might even be feasible to integrate bikeshare with a charger location, giving the traveler who has stopped to charge up a much wider range of opportunities while they wait.

Reorienting federal investment

Unfortunately, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, Congress’s first stab at building a charging network, is not grounded in charger-oriented development principles. NEVI charging locations, as well as the corridor grants for the Community Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) program, are required to be within one mile of the highway they serve. This pulls opportunity away from countless rural towns a little over a mile or two off the highway. State DOTs are implementing NEVI plans for the first time and there is no guidance or incentive for them to do anything other than place chargers out at the truck stop. The next blog post in this series showcases opportunities for charger-oriented development we are already missing in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The emphasis on the NEVI program itself, with the vast majority of federal charging infrastructure funding going to level 3 chargers placed to serve long-distance travel, comes from a gas-station mindset. American drivers typically drive only 37 miles per day on average, and less than one percent of trips are more than 100 miles. Those distances are easily covered by overnight charging. In many cases those longer trips could also be better served by passenger and high-speed rail as they are in other developed nations.

The bottom line

As we build out America’s charging infrastructure ecosystem, there’s no need to emulate the gas station. Chargers are going to be a major infrastructure investment, but in the end, it really is just an electric cord with a plug and a parking spot. Charging can be delivered in a more diffuse fashion and fit in more dense vibrant neighborhoods. If approached the right way, our charging infrastructure won’t keep people tethered to power outlets on the side of the road, but free them up to accomplish more as they leave their cars to charge.