News and Blog - Page 54 of 78 - Transportation For America

May 31st transportation funding deadline looming over lawmakers

We’re only three weeks away from the expiration of MAP-21, the transportation law of the land, and Congress still does not have a solid plan for renewing or extending it — or for keeping the nation’s transportation fund solvent past the first days of summer.

Well, we’re here. Seems like just yesterday we were writing the news that Congress had finally passed a new transportation law. But that law, MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21^st Century Act, was only two years in length instead of the customary six, and it will expire at the end of the month after its first short-term extension concludes. Congress is no closer to agreeing on a multi-year replacement than they were when they kicked the can down the road last summer. To complicate matters, the temporary funding patch that Congress passed in 2014 to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent will run dry by mid-July, according to USDOT projections.

So far, Congress has not hatched a concrete plan to reauthorize MAP-21 and find a long-term stable funding source, but lawmakers do have some ideas.

In February, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced a bill that would nearly double the federal gas tax over the next three years to help fund a long-term transportation bill.

Last month, a bipartisan group of Representatives led by Reps. Renacci (R-OH) and Pascrell (D- NJ) introduced The Bridge to Sustainable Infrastructure Act, which seeks to raise the gas tax by indexing it to inflation by January 2016. The gas tax would then rise every three years unless Congress finds another funding source for the Highway Trust Fund, ultimately guaranteeing 10 years of funding for the transportation program. This bill is the only plan with any bipartisan support that proposes to raise user fees (i.e., the gas tax) in any way. It currently has 20 cosponsors: eight Republicans and 12 Democrats.

Several lawmakers and the Obama Administration have proposed using a one-time repatriation of corporate profits as a source of funding. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bill that would encourage corporations holding profits overseas to return these profits to the US through voluntary “tax holiday” at a decreased tax rate of 6.5 percent. The Obama Administration’s plan would force companies to return their overseas money to the U.S. and pay a 14 percent tax rate on that money. Both repatriation proposals would transfer a portion of the earnings from the tax on returned corporate profits to the transportation trust fund.

Reps. John Delaney (D-MD) and Richard Hanna (R-NY) introduced a bill that would tax overseas profits by 8.75 percent, and would potentially raise $170 billion for the Highway Trust Fund.

What will happen before May 31?

Several lawmakers have sounded the alarm on finding a plan to reauthorize MAP-21 and keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent before the May 31^st deadline passes.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx called the short-term extensions that several lawmakers have proposed an “outrage,” saying that a long-term plan was necessary so transportation planners could be sure that they’d have the funding needed to move forward with long-term plans.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is rallying fellow Democrats in the Senate to block a Republican-backed trade deal until the Senate deals with funding the Highway Trust Fund (and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), meanwhile, also cited the need to address MAP-21, calling it a “must-do” item that needs to be completed by Memorial Day.

Over in the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) sent a memo to his fellow House Republicans that urged them to act to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent, which is set to go broke by midsummer. He said that any proposals to increase the gas tax, however, would be dead on arrival this Congress.

Next year’s budget

Whether Congress reauthorizes MAP-21 and extends the Highway Trust Fund will affect funding for next year’s budget for all transportation and housing programs. The House’s Transportation, Housing and Urban Development subcommittee released a transportation budget that proposes heavy cuts to TIGER, New Starts and Amtrak capital funding while holding steady funding levels for highways and other programs. The full House is expected to consider the Committee’s transportation appropriation bill upon return from a weeklong recess. The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to release their proposed fiscal year 2016 transportation budget. While slow on the uptick, we expect this Congress to be more active on transportation items over the coming summer months. Stay tuned.

The Red & Purple transit lines in Maryland would position Maryland for long-term economic success

Drawing from experience across the nation, a new Transportation for America report attempts to assess the full range of potential economic benefits from the planned Red and Purple transit lines in Maryland. The key finding: With benefits that far outweigh the costs, these two lines would help position Maryland for economic success in ways that few other investments are likely to do.

Send a message to Governor Hogan urging him to approve the two projects.

Send A Message

At a time when competitor regions are moving forward with their own ambitious transit plans and companies and workers alike are being drawn in increasing numbers to walkable locations with high-quality transit, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan will soon be deciding the fate of two long-awaited transit projects in Baltimore and the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Much ink has been spilled on the costs of the projects, but what about the potential benefits?

There are the short-term benefits as construction starts, workers are hired, materials are produced and sourced, and these large multi-year investments get underway; and there are the long-term benefits like the tens of thousands of additional jobs newly accessible by transit, the tens of thousands of people that have access to high-quality rail transit that did not before, and the development made possible by the dozens of stations on these new lines.The benefits to both the Washington and Baltimore regions are significant:

Building the projects would give 174,000 additional Maryland residents access to frequent, high-quality transit.
These two lines will help dramatically expand the labor and customer base for Maryland businesses. 540,000 jobs will be accessible via high-quality rail transit following construction.
The two new transit lines would generate 35,440 direct & indirect jobs and make a total $9 billion economic impact.

Gov. Hogan has stated his commitment to making Maryland “open for business” and prioritizing economic development around the state. How better to do that than by taking strong steps to keep the two largest regions in the state competitive for decades to come?

In March, the CEO of Marriott International, currently headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland in Montgomery County, shared the news with the Washington Post that they would be looking to relocate when their current lease is up.What’s their primary prerequisite for their new location? “I think it’s essential we be accessible to Metro, and that limits the options,” said CEO Arne Sorenson. If the Purple line gets built as planned, Montgomery and Prince George’s counties would see their total number of Metro stations nearly double, from 26 to 47. Wouldn’t it be smart for Maryland to double the options to retain employers like Marriott?

This is a recurring theme we’ve heard in meetings with mayors, chamber officials, and other civic leaders across the country. Making smart investments in transportation, and especially in transit, is a crucial part of their strategy to stay competitive and attract the talented workforce that is increasingly seeking out jobs and homes in walkable, connected cities and neighborhoods.

In Baltimore, the east-west Red Line would help turn a disconnected pair of existing transit lines into a proper system, connecting the hub of jobs at Johns Hopkins, the University of Maryland Baltimore County, the downtown office core, and the residential neighborhoods all along the line — including some of the West Baltimore neighborhoods that could use the investment and connection to opportunity that a new transit line provides.

There’s nothing else in the plans in Maryland’s future that could bring the kind of long-term economic benefits to the state as these two transit projects could. Yes, both are expensive, but the benefits of each will far outweigh the costs — to say nothing of the heavy costs of inaction.

Several years ago, with the Purple line delayed once again, the Washington Post ran these ads in D.C.

: Thanks to Richard Layman for the use of this photo. http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com

It would be a shame to see ads like these again in ten or 20 years as we regret these missed opportunities. Tell Governor Hogan that you support both of these projects by sending him a letter.

Economic analysis shows Red and Purple lines could be major boon for Maryland, the city of Baltimore and suburban Washington, DC

Report puts the two lines in national context as governor weighs whether to fund them

The two rail transit lines being considered by Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and his advisers could help leverage billions of dollars in income, increased productivity and expanded tax base, according to a new analysis from Transportation for a America.

The report is the first attempt to assess the full range of potential economic benefits from construction of the Purple Line, connecting Maryland’s Washington, D.C. suburbs, and the Red line, providing east-west connections between Baltimore and its suburbs.

“Given the number of regions across the country contemplating similar investments, we wanted to offer this report as a template for how to make a comprehensive assessment of economic impacts,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. “We found that the Red and Purple lines would have a payoff many times their cost and would yield economic results like few other investments being contemplated in Maryland.”

Among the findings:

The two lines would generate more than 35,000 direct and indirect jobs, increasing household income by over $1 billion;
Associated productivity increases from more reliable commutes and better access would raise incomes by another estimated $2.2 billion;
Increased real estate development potential would raise the tax base of the affected jurisdictions by billions of dollars — $12.8 billion for the Purple Line alone.
Families can save more than $900 a month if they can get by with one or fewer cars thanks to high-quality transit service;
Nearly 250,000 jobs will be accessible via rail transit in the Baltimore region, and 290,000 in the D.C. suburbs.

Additional benefits explored in the report include time savings for future commuters versus driving in traffic; the potential to retain employers who would have access to a larger pool of workers with reasonable commute options; and the long-term payoff of training local workers for higher-skill jobs.

“The Purple Line connects our region and makes Maryland relevant in the competition for talent and employers,” said Ilaya Hopkins, vice president for public affairs at the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. “It provides greater access to opportunity for students, residents and employers in our state’s two most populous counties and connects major centers such as the University of Maryland College Park with multiple employment hubs. This report, published by a national organization, highlights the positive impact of the Purple Line for the state and the region.”

“Baltimore’s Red Line will transform the city’s rail transit into a connected, comprehensive system,” said Donald C. Fry, president and CEO of the Greater Baltimore Committee. “In doing so, it will attract businesses, generate jobs and have a significant long-term beneficial impact on the economy of the city and region.”

The report’s conclusions may have special relevance for Baltimore as the city attempts to address the economic struggles that helped fuel the recent unrest, Corless noted.

“Older cities like Pittsburgh and Baltimore don’t turn around without bold — but smart — investment in the future,” said former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy, who helped lead the city’s comeback in the 1990s and early 2000s. “Like Pittsburgh before it’s recent turn-around, Baltimore has the precursors for success in its medical and educational assets. Investing in an excellent transit system will help tip the scales toward economic development while helping residents of all income levels get to the jobs that will follow.”

The full report is available online at https://t4america.org/maps-tools/maryland-transit-report/

View the Report

Iowa was the first to successfully raise new state transportation funding in 2015 – and they did it with bipartisan support

Iowa in February became the first state in 2015 to pass a transportation-funding bill when legislators moved to raise the state’s gasoline and diesel taxes by 10 cents per gallon.

Though seven states have now successfully moved to raise new transportation funding in 2015, Iowa made it to the finish line first. On February 25^th, Republican Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill into law that increased the state’s gasoline and diesel fuel taxes by 10 cents per gallon, raising new funding to help maintain the roads and bridges crisscrossing one of the most important states for freight and agriculture in the U.S.

Iowa governor Terry Branstad.

In signing the bill, Branstad said: “This is a great example — on a difficult and controversial issue — of the kind of bipartisan cooperation that really makes Iowa stand out as a state, where we work together and we get things done on behalf of the citizens of our state. This is important for economic development. This is important for our farmers to be able to get their crops to market. I know that many people have been waiting a long time for the legislature to act.”

The increased gas tax — the rate on regular gas rose from 21 to 31 cents per gallon, and the rate for diesel rose from 22.5 to 32.5 cents per gallon — and other associated fees took effect on March 1^st. Last week, Iowa’s Department of Transportation stated their plans to use the new funds toward $700 million in road maintenance and construction projects.

“I feel Iowa took a huge step forward by addressing our aging infrastructure,” State Rep. Josh Byrnes (R-Osage), chairman of the House Transportation Committee, told AgriNews. “It shows that Iowa is truly open for business and we have the leadership to make difficult decisions. Iowa is a net exporter of goods and these funds will help ensure that Iowa continues to have the needed infrastructure to transport people and products.”

HISTORY LESSON

At the start of the legislative session, Iowa was facing an estimated $215 million annual gap between revenues and needs, according to the state Department of Transportation. The state’s gas tax was last raised in 1989 to 19 cents per gallon, during current governor Terry Branstad’s first foray as governor of the Hawkeye State.

For years, key legislators and business leaders pushed for meaningful legislation to bolster transportation funding, but they never gained enough momentum to pass it, said Senator Tod Bowman (D-Clinton), chair of the Senate Transportation Committee. “We couldn’t drum up enough support. We didn’t really have the leadership from the Governor,” he said.

This year would prove to be different, however.

Iowa state representative Jim Lykam.

Gov. Branstad’s vocal support was critical in convincing Republican lawmakers that this was a must-pass piece of legislation for the state, said State Rep. Jim Lykam (D-Davenport), the ranking member of the House Transportation Committee. “We were in constant communication with the governor’s office,” he said. “You always run the risk of sending the bill down and having the governor veto it, and we needed to make sure this wouldn’t happen.”

The bill had to jump an atypical hurdle before it passed. The Senate minority leader and the House speaker required that the bill garner “yes” votes from the majority of each minority party in each chamber. This unusual requirement meant that the bill would not move without widespread consensus.

“This consumed me for the first six weeks of the session,” said State Rep. Lykam. “It was just back and forth negotiations. You try and do something — you pick up votes, but then you lose votes over here — so it was a give and take.”

IOWANS GETTING INSPIRED IN DENVER

Just before their work began in the new legislative session in January, Rep. Lykam and Senator Bowman attended Transportation for America’s Capital Ideas Conference in Denver in November 2014, which helped them find focus and fresh ideas that they brought back to Iowa. Senator Bowman learned from a group of attendees from Massachusetts about the pros and cons of tying any future gas tax increases to inflation.

Scott VanDeWoestyne, the government affairs director for the Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce — another Capital Ideas attendee — said the conference helped light a fire under him and the two legislators.

“They were able to come back from Denver, and come here to the Quad Cities region and engage in good conversation,” VanDeWoestyne said. “Good comprehensive discussions with their colleagues about, ‘Hey, these are some of the other things states are doing, and we need to be focused on this.’”

VanDeWoestyne also stressed the importance of Iowa’s transportation funding bill to the Quad Cities metro area.

“Our economy in the Quad Cities region is growing fast,” he added, “and the state’s transportation investments have had a tough time keeping pace. This is one of the reasons we have championed greater federal and state transportation investments in Iowa. So, it was very heartening to see this year that Iowa moved towards a solution, and we’re happy to be a part of the compromise.”

EDUCATING THE MASSES

As with any piece of legislation that involves new taxes, not all Iowans were on board. A coalition of stakeholders from across the state focused on educating legislators and the general public and establishing consensus that the transportation package was necessary to support economic development and provide better quality of life to the state’s residents.

Iowa state senator Todd Bowman.

“The more that people know about the issue, the easier it is to push a difficult thing like a tax increase,” said Senator Bowman. “Nobody wants to pay more taxes for their fuel. But nobody wants their roads and bridges to deteriorate, and so it becomes a point of education.”

THE GOVERNOR’S SUPPORT

Rep. Lykam cites the governor’s continuous support as one of the critical reasons why this bill gained the broad agreement needed to pass the legislature. “When the Governor grabs the microphone, you know he’s got the bullhorn for the full state,” said Lykam. “It was very, very important that we had his support.”

It took a few years, a broad coalition of stakeholders and bipartisan consensus, but Iowans have shown what can be accomplished when partisan politics are set aside to raise the necessary revenue to maintain and enhance their transportation system to support the state’s economy.

As we note here often, the Iowa legislature acted to expand their capacity to match and stretch the dollars they expect from the federal program. Congress needs to act, in turn, to stabilize and increase that funding, to ensure that the bold moves in state houses this year are not undermined by a wobbly federal partner.

House proposes cuts to TIGER and transit construction, stable funding for other programs for fiscal 2016

The House Appropriations Committee introduced a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (T-HUD) bill for fiscal 2016 that, as in years past, features heavy cuts to TIGER, New Starts and Amtrak.

The bill, approved by the T-HUD subcommittee and headed back to the full Appropriations Committee for markup and a vote, maintains funding rates for federal highway and mass transit formula dollars, $40.3 billion and $8.6 billion respectively. Of course, these funding levels assume that Congress is going to act to find enough money to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent past this June or July, and also move to either reauthorize or extend MAP-21 after its May 31^stexpiration. Without either action, there won’t be any money for transportation past that deadline, much less for the entire next fiscal year.

Meanwhile, other key programs are facing heavy cuts.

TIGER: The overwhelmingly popular TIGER program would shrink from $500 million to $100 million. In addition, the size of grants would be far smaller, within a range of $2-15 million, down from last year’s range of $10-200 million. This year’s T-HUD also reduces the share that the federal government will cover for TIGER projects, from 60 percent to 50 percent, requiring more local or state money to be brought to the table.

The silver lining in all this is that the House did not repeat last year’s attempt to limit eligibility to only road and port projects, a move that would have left out the wide range of multimodal projects that have benefited the most from this innovative program.

New Starts & Small Starts: These programs that fund new rail, rapid bus and streetcar construction would receive $1.92 billion in funding, down from last year’s $2.12 billion in the final budget. The new bill would also reduce the federal government’s share of New Starts projects from 60 percent to 50 percent.

Amtrak: Amtrak would have a budget of $1.1 billion. The bill actually adds $39 million to the rail service’s operational costs, but cuts $290 million from its capital budget.

The Senate has yet to release its own budget, but for the last few years, the Senate has prioritized funding for many of these important programs. However, with the change in leadership in the Senate in this Congress, it’s unclear if things could play out similarly this year compared to years past.

Members can read our full summary memo on the THUD bill below.

[member_content] Members, you can read our full members-only THUD summary here. (pdf)

And, have you been to the new portal for all members-only content? https://t4america.org/members [/member_content]

Members, help us choose the topic for the next “Innovative MPO” webinar

Loading…

New T4America report chronicles the prevalence of Minnesota’s structurally deficient bridges

As the Minnesota legislature debates legislation to increase transportation funding, T4America released a new report looking at the prevalence of structurally deficient bridges in the state. This report is a state-level version of “The Fix We’re In For,” a report we’ve issued several times since 2011, with updated 2015 statistics for Minnesota.

Click to view the full report and summary data.

Minnesota today has 830 structurally deficient bridges — bridges in urgent need of repair or replacement — representing 6.4 percent of the state’s 12,961 bridges. The average age of these sub-par bridges is 66 years — well over the typical design life of 50 years and nearly double the average age of all Minnesota bridges (35 years old). More than one in ten Minnesota bridges were built before 1948 — which means more than 1,300 bridges are older than the Korean War and creation of Medicare. Minnesota drivers collectively took close to 628 million trips over deficient bridges in 2014. That’s more than 1.7 million trips per day or almost 1,200 trips every minute taken over deficient Minnesota bridges in 2014.

With the Minnesota legislature currently debating bills right now to increase state transportation funding, something that 19 states have successfully undertaken since 2012, it’s a good time to look at the problem and what can be done to address it — especially in light of the uncertainty surrounding federal transportation funding as Congress has repeatedly failed to find stable, long-term funding for the nearly insolvent Highway Trust Fund.

Download the report to see the full summary statistics, data broken up by county, and T4America’s recommendations for Minnesota and states around the country hoping to address their backlog of structurally deficient bridges.

Hold states accountable for repairing roads and bridges – send a letter to USDOT

The U.S. Department of Transportation is in the process of writing new rules to hold states accountable for the condition of their roads and bridges. USDOT’s strong first draft rule was a step in the right direction, and we want to thank them — and ensure they don’t bow to pressure to soften these requirements.

Can you take just one minute to sign this letter to USDOT? We’ll hand-deliver a copy straight to USDOT for you.

Did you already take action? Share this action with others:

The 2012 transportation law (MAP-21) requires transportation agencies to begin using a new system of performance measures to govern how federal dollars are spent. USDOT is working to establish these new metrics for safety, the state of repair, congestion (coming soon!), air emissions and other aspects of our transportation system through an iterative process of draft rules, feedback, refined drafts and final rules.

Look, we get it: this is a wonky and arcane affair. So why should you take action and provide a comment on this pavement and bridge proposed rule? Because USDOT is truly listening to comments and making changes as a result.

USDOT’s first rule on roadway safety wasn’t a good one, to put it bluntly, and it failed to ensure that safety would improve. Yet the thousands of comments we delivered played a part in improving it.

In that draft, states were allowed to fail half of the fatality and injury targets and still receive a passing grade. But after receiving more than 1,500 comments, USDOT incorporated that feedback into this improved draft for roads and bridges, requiring progress on all targets — not just 50 percent of them.

Now USDOT is going to hear from the other side, those that don’t want states to be held to such high standards. We need to let USDOT know that we support the changes they made and that requiring progress across the board is just as essential for evaluating the condition of our roads and bridges.

Between 2009 and 2011, all U.S. states collectively spent $20.4 billion annually to build new roadways and add lanes to existing roads, and just $16.5 billion annually repairing and preserving existing roads and bridges. But by 2011, after spending more than half of all highway dollars on expansion projects, just 37 percent of our nation’s roadways were in ‘good’ condition. And today, more than 260 million trips are taken each year on the country’s structurally deficient bridges.

That’s not good enough. We need to hold states accountable to meet measurable targets with our tax dollars. USDOT has drafted a better rule to make that happen, and we need your help to ensure it stays that way.

Read and sign this letter today, and we’ll deliver it to USDOT before the May 8 deadline.

Join us for a discussion on the TIGER grant program and what you need to know before applying

T4America is hosting a webinar this Thursday at 3 p.m. to help municipalities and states interested in applying for this year’s $500 million in grants available in the latest round of TIGER grant funding.

Join us on Thursday, April 23, at 2 p.m. for a discussion with Beth Osborne, T4America’s Senior Policy Advisor, on the ins and outs of the federal TIGER grant program, examples of past winners, and how to best craft a winning application. Communities across the country have benefitted from over $4 billion in grants for innovative, multimodal projects over the last six rounds of funding dating back to February 2010, and you can see them all here on our TIGER map.

Before coming to T4America, Osborne was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at USDOT, where she ran the TIGER program. Almost no one inside or outside of USDOT knows more about the program or how it works, and she will outline the basic information, show examples of previous winners and share tips you need to put together a smart application.

The 7th round of the TIGER competitive grant application period is currently open, which includes a pre-application deadline of May 4, 2015 and a final application deadline of June 5, 2015.

And then there were seven: April update on state transportation funding legislation

A total of seven states have now successfully passed legislation in 2015 to raise new money to invest in transportation, avoid budget shortfalls from declining revenue sources and keep up with growing needs — mostly by voting to raise their state fuel taxes.

Georgia passed a bill that will raise approximately $900 million annually mostly for state highway projects. The bill changes how the state taxes gas, switching from a sales tax on gas purchases to a 26-cents-per-gallon excise tax, indexed to both the change in the average fuel efficiency of all vehicles registered in the state and to inflation (measured by the Consumer Price Index). That double indexing will ensure the new per-gallon tax doesn’t lose future value due to inflation or improved fuel efficiency. The bill also places fees on other services, including a $5-per-night hotel fee, $300 annually in fees for electric cars and $100 annually in fees for heavy trucks. In light of this switch from a sales tax to per-gallon taxes on gasoline, it’s worth noting that Georgia is one of dozens of states with a constitutional prohibition on spending per-gallon gas tax revenues on public transportation.

Georgia counties and cities also won a modified option to raise funds for local transportation needs via additional sales taxes of up to one percent if approved by the county commission and voter referendum. Before this modification, a local option sales tax referendum could only be held on dates and in regions determined by the legislature.

Also worth noting is the passage of a separate bill that finally removes the onerous requirement that MARTA (Atlanta’s regional transit system) could spend no more than 50 percent of its locally-raised revenue to fund operations — essentially the state telling them what they could or couldn’t do with their locally-raised revenues. At one point during negotiations there was a provision that would have allowed the cities and counties that contribute to MARTA to increase the sales tax dedicated to the system by 0.5 percent via ballot measures, but this provision was removed from the final bill.

In North Carolina, legislators passed a bill to raise the minimum gas tax rate of their variable tax to 36 cents per gallon. The gas tax was previously 37.5 cents per gallon but would have dropped below 30 cents per gallon in July, which would have cost the state an estimated $266 million in funding for transportation over the next year.

Kentucky, with a variable tax rate similar to North Carolina, passed a similar bill. The state established a new gas tax minimum of 26 cents per gallon. The new minimum will prevent an estimated $250 million drop in contributions to their transportation fund for the year.

The House and Senate in Idaho both approved raising their gas tax from 25 cents per gallon to 32 cents along with increases to the state’s vehicle fees. The bill will raise an estimated $94 million for maintenance of the state’s roads and bridges. The bill is sitting on Governor Butch Otter’s desk waiting for his signature.

Those states join Iowa, Utah and South Dakota as the seven states that have successfully raised new funds in 2015. With legislative sessions and active proposals still moving in a handful of states, more could still follow this year.

Louisiana legislators have filed several bills to address the state’s transportation issues. One bill would raise the state fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon with new revenue dedicated to parish governments. Another proposal would temporarily raise the state fuel tax by 4 cents per gallon for the next three years. A separate bill would reform the way the state selects highway projects, improving the potential for return on transportation investments while adding transparency and accountability that could boost the prospects of the plans to raise new revenue.

Nebraska’s legislature has advanced a bill to increase their state gas tax by 6 cents per gallon, but Governor Ricketts said he opposes the increase and has called for a study committee to assess the state’s transportation need instead.

Lastly, for any Minnesota funding proposals to have a chance this year, they must pass out of their committees by April 24^th. Check back then for results.

Helping metros respond to the booming demand for more transportation options

Building on the range of new ideas for metropolitan planning organizations outlined in our Innovative MPO report, we’re hosting the second in a series of online discussions to help MPO staff, board members, and civic leaders respond to the booming demand for new transportation options, driven by demographics and technology.

Click here to download your copy.

First up, have you downloaded your copy of The Innovative MPO yet? It’s a great free resource we released a few months ago, so get your copy now. Second, join us on April 22nd at 3 p.m. EST for “Innovative Regional Mobility: A Review of Best Practice and Future Trends.”

Changes in market preferences, technology and travel patterns are driving a new consumer demand for a range of transportation options. Ensuring that your region is competitive in this new mobility context is crucial to its economic success and quality of life. T4America’s Innovative MPO guidebook offers many examples of the creative mobility solutions that communities can implement to become more responsive to these demand changes going forward.

Join experts from T4America, the Broward MPO, Wasatch Front Regional Council and the University of California at Berkeley to learn about best practices and trends in how transit and mobility solutions are changing our communities and attracting talent.

Erika Young, Director of Strategic Partnerships, T4America
Ted Knowlton, Deputy Executive Director, Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC)
James Cromar, Director of Planning Livability Planning Studies, Implementation of Transportation & Land Use Improvements
Susan Shaheen, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Co-Director, TSRC

‘Speak up for transportation’: Analyses show the devastating impact of federal cuts

Congress has seen various proposals floated to scale back federal investment in transportation, from cutting out transit funding to ending the federal gasoline tax and shifting full responsibility to the states. We decided to take a look at what that latter move would mean for taxpayers, who would have to make up the difference in each state or accept multi-million dollar decreases in funding and deteriorating conditions on an annual basis.

The bottom line: All states would have to raise their per-gallon gas taxes more than the federal rate of 18.4 cents to replace the lost revenue — and many states would have to raise theirs by much more. Click through to see the full analysis with graphics and data for all 50 states

There’s a reason you don’t hear state politicians calling for the end of the federal transportation program and the gas tax. That’s because every single state receives more in federal transportation funds than they pay into the federal system — in part because Congress has been transferring billions from the general fund to make up for slackening gas tax receipts and the fact that the gas tax hasn’t been raised in more than two decades.

At least 16 states have moved to raise their own transportation revenues since 2012, leading some in Congress to claim that those moves show states would be fine with accepting the full burden.

But ending federal support would be a nightmare for governors and legislators, who would have to choose between slashing repair and investment or trying to push through massive tax increases to replace federal revenues.

(The Transportation Construction Coalition released a similar analysis a few weeks ago, but, unlike the analysis here, it did not include the 20 percent of the transportation program that supports public transportation. -Ed.)

According to our full analysis: (See columns 2-3 in the table)

19 states would have to raise their gas taxes by at least 25¢ per gallon, over 36 percent more than the current 18.4¢ federal rate.
Vermont would have to raise the state gas tax by 50¢ per gallon to break even – and that’s on top of a recent increase lawmakers passed to add the equivalent of 6.5¢ to each gallon of gas.
New York, which receives the highest amount of transit funding in the country, would have to raise the state gas tax by 40¢ to keep the same amount of transit money flowing into their highly-used systems.

Even if states only raised their gas taxes the equivalent of the 18.4¢ federal tax, our calculations also show that: (See column 4-5 in the table.)

States collectively would lose out on $8.47 billion (according to data from fiscal 2014);
Missouri, currently attempting to raise additional state funding to address an already large budget hole, would need to raise $144 million each year on top of their current needs;
New Jersey, facing the imminent bankruptcy of its state transportation trust fund, would also have to find an additional $373.6 million;
California would lose nearly $1 billion ($970.5 million, to be exact).
In Wyoming, where lawmakers just passed a 10-cent gas tax increase expected to generate $72 million per year, they’d be almost back to square one, losing $57 million.

States also would fare poorly under proposals to eliminate federal contributions for public transportation, as two proposals in Congress would do, according to an analysis out today from the American Public Transportation Association. From their release:

The analysis shows that proposals to cut federal funding for public transit would result in an average 43 percent reduction in a community’s capital improvement funding. Overall, the loss of federal capital and operating funding would put at risk more than $227 billion in economic activity over six years. … Small and rural communities would be aversely affected because a greater percentage of their total funding is from the federal government.

No matter how you slice it, dramatically reducing federal dollars, whether for roads or transit, would have devastating impacts on state’s population centers – the places where commerce happens and revenues are generated. Going in the other direction however, by increasing investment available to states and local communities, would help keep roads and transit in good repair while we build for the future economy.

Read our full analysis, including graphics and sortable data for all 50 states.

This post and analysis is part of “Stand Up for Transportation” day today. Find out more and get involved here: http://standup4transportation.org/

As transit becomes ‘must-have economic development tool,’ will Congress help?

An excellent piece in the Washington Post this morning caught up to the topic we have been raising here for some time: Good transit service and walkable locations with nearby places to live, eat and shop are essential for economic development in today’s world. Which makes us wonder: Is Congress listening?

Recalling that Marriott’s chief executive recently expressed a desire to locate near Metro rail, reporters Katherine Shaver and Bill Turque wrote:

Marriott’s announcement is the latest sign that mass transit, once viewed as a prescription for traffic congestion, is now considered a must-have economic development tool to attract millennials — the country’s largest living generation — along with their employers, and the taxes that both contribute to local governments. Adding to the demand is the country’s second-largest demographic group: empty-nest baby boomers seeking to downsize in the suburbs and drive less as they grow older.

As regular readers are well aware, Congress must find money to renew the federal transportation program this year, ostensibly by May 31 (though an extension of the law itself is all but inevitable). In doing so, lawmakers can either help or hurt communities, like those discussed in the story, that are lining up for very limited dollars for transit, TIGER and the like — money that can help them prepare their communities for economic success.

They are doing so in large part because they are continually hearing messages like this one from Stephen P. Joyce, Choice Hotels’ chief executive, quoted in the Post:

If you’re a suburban employer and you want to be relevant to people who want to live in urban locations, you’ve got to think mass transit,” Joyce said. “I can’t compete unless they can get to us without driving.

Henry Bernstein, a longtime economic development official who is now an executive in a commercial real estate firm in Rockville, MD, explains why: “This generation wants more things at their fingertips, rather than having to jump in a car to get to the mall or go eat. I truly believe any community that doesn’t have these things will fail.”

The Post story comes the same month that State Farm officials announced they would consolidate employees in three cities at regional hubs on sites with rail transit. “We’re designing these workplaces to be the future of State Farm,” chief operating officer Michael Tipsord said. “We’re creating a live-work-play environment that will give employees easy access to their work from the neighboring communities.”

Among the possible solutions within the federal program is the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, introduced in both the House and Senate this month by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. It would give a major boost by allowing local communities more access to federal dollars flowing to their state, but there is so much more that could be done with more robust transit funding and more flexible use of existing dollars.

Here’s hoping that Congress is paying attention, and that the next federal program will provide local communities more access to the funds they need to meet the needs of today’s economy.

Could a national TIGER program co-exist along with a version in each state? Yes, says U.S. DOT

As momentum builds for a proposal to give local communities of all sizes direct access to a share of federal transportation dollars via statewide competitive grant programs, a USDOT official affirmed that it would complement the existing national grant program and help meet more of the pressing needs in these communities.

Senator Wicker asks a question during this week’s hearing.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) is a sponsor of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, which would create the state programs. During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing this week, he asked Peter Rogoff, under secretary for policy at USDOT, whether a statewide grant program similar to TIGER could work in tandem with it. As a prelude, he gave an example of the good that grants to local communities can do:

I want to give you an example. There were three small counties in Southwest Mississippi that came together in a project called Tri-Mississippi; Claiborne County, Jefferson, and Franklin County. They submitted a TIGER application in 2014 to fund the replacement of 22 failing bridges and the repair of 40 miles of roadway. This grant was awarded to Tri-Mississippi, and through this project we were able to create, we believe, 262 additional jobs in an area that was highly distressed economically.

The booming demand for the TIGER program underscores two points: There is far more demand for the grants than currently supplied, and locals are clamoring for more direct access to fund smart projects that are often neglected by their states. Sen. Wicker continues:

So, good news for these three small counties; bad news for the counties that submitted equally excellent applications and weren’t chosen. In this system we have learned that nationwide nearly 6,100 applications have been submitted and only 343 receive funds. This represents a project award rate of less than 6 percent. Last year’s competition alone had projects requesting funding 15 times the amount authorized in the [TIGER] program. As one of our witnesses mentioned the needs are out there, and we are simply not meeting the needs.

TIGER grants often go toward bigger projects and it can be a challenge for a small community to compete with big metro areas or joint projects from multiple states to win funding, as well as handling the complications of preparing an application for a small community with limited staff. Meanwhile, their state controls almost all of the federal formula funding that comes to their state, and locals have little control or say over where it gets spent. Sen. Wicker added:

That is why Senator Booker and I have developed a state-based competitive grant program that you might call state-based TIGER, or TIGER-esque program for states. We introduced it last year. We’ve reintroduced it again this year in the form of the Innovation and Surface Transportation Act. Discuss this concept of a certain portion of funds being set-aside for competitive, merit-based applications, so more of these local communities are able to utilize funds in a way where they could not possibly submit a match.”

Mr. Rogoff answered:

“I think there is certainly room for both, but I think there is value in a federal program where we can disseminate best practices, and if Mississippi also wants to mirror that with a competitive, innovative program that can go to local communities, more the better.”

The more the better, indeed.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act would give local communities more access to, and control over, a share of the federal transportation dollars that flow into their states. Just like TIGER, it would be competitive and projects would compete on the merits. But unlike TIGER, the selection panel would be made up of state and local representatives. Rather than compete against every community in the country, applicants would pursue funds along with their peers within the state.

Rallying support for this measure may be the best chance we have this year to get federal dollars closer to taxpayers’ communities.

Just this week, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) indicated he believes the current system giving states all the control is sufficiently “local”, Congressional Quarterly reported. Rep. Shuster needs to hear from his fellow representatives that the status quo isn’t cutting it in their communities. Now is the time to remind them all that communities need more access to federal dollars, not less.

Send a message to your representative and senators and urge them to support this bill.

A new bill in Congress would create new financing option for transit-oriented development

This article originated on our partners’ websites Smart Growth America and LOCUS Developers.

Transit-oriented development (TOD) can make it easier for people to live and work near public transportation. These places are in high demand and real estate developers are eager to build them, but because they’re often complicated TOD projects can be difficult to secure financing for.

A new bill in Congress would help make it easier to finance TOD projects. On Thursday, Senator Cory Booker (NJ) introduced the Railroad Infrastructure Financing Improvement Act (RIFIA). This legislation would expand the scope of theRailroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program, which currently provides financing for railroad infrastructure development, to include TOD projects near passenger rail stations.

Only $1.7 billion in loans have been processed since RRIF’s inception. RIFIA would not only broaden the scope of the program to a variety of development projects, but also streamline the process to make application easier. With the addition of TOD projects into RRIF, communities will have an additional tool to utilize existing infrastructure for economic revitalization.

“Historically, RRIF has been underutilized,” said Christopher Coes, Director of LOCUS: Responsible Real Estate Developers and Investors. “The reforms included in this legislation would ensure that local communities have the tools they need to unlock the enormous economic potential of transit-oriented development while encouraging greater private investment in passenger rail infrastructure.”

“The areas around our country’s passenger rail stations are often economic sleeping giants,” said John Robert Smith, co-chair of Transportation for America. “Finding ways to finance and catalyze smart development in and around them is a proven strategy to boost local economies. Through the renovation of our historic train station in Meridian, MS, we were able to kickstart millions in adjacent development in our small city’s core. Countless mayors all over the country are eager for ways to stimulate the kind of smart, walkable growth that is in such high demand right now, and providing access to low-cost loans for these kinds of projects will give small and large cities alike another valuable tool to revitalize their city and support their local economy.”

In addition to providing financing for TOD, the new program would invest loan repayments back into rail infrastructure to help fund capital and operations expenses. This presents a unique opportunity for private-public partnerships between real estate developers and passenger rail agencies.

In January, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx voiced his support for new financing options for TOD. “When you build a transit station, it captures the imagination of real estate developers, and they start to build dense developments and bring amenities to communities. I would urge that we do more to partner with local communities, and to help them develop the tools to utilize land use opportunities.”

Senators and reps respond to locals’ pleas, introduce bill to steer more money to local transportation needs

Yesterday afternoon, a bipartisan group of senators and representatives released a bill that will give local communities more access to, and control over, a share of the federal transportation dollars that flow into their states.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act was introduced yesterday in the House and Senate (H.R. 1393 and S.762) by Senators Wicker (R-MS), Booker (D-NJ), Casey (D-PA) and Murkowski (R-AK); and Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL), Dina Titus (D-NV) Gregg Harper, (R-MS), Cheri Bustos (D-IL), Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Matt Cartwright (D-PA).

Send a clear message that this idea has strong support across the country. Tell your representatives to support the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act in the House and Senate.

Want to know more about how this new grant program would work? Do you have a few questions? Read this explainer post on the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act that gives a quick overview of the mechanics of the policy and how it would be implemented. Have other questions? Get in touch with us.

Mayors and other local elected leaders are the ones who face the music from citizens when bridges need repair, when mounting congestion makes commutes unpredictable, and when families can’t safely walk their kids to school — yet those same leaders are too often left out of the discussions over what gets built and where.

The ten members of Congress sponsoring this bill represent areas large and small, urban and rural, red and blue. But small town or big city, these congressmen and women are responding to what they’re hearing from the local mayors and county officials back at home. Here’s Senator and original sponsor Roger Wicker two weeks ago during a hearing with U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx:

I can tell you, Mr. Secretary, that when county governments come to see me, when city officials come to see me, they are excited about this concept of a program to dedicate a portion of federal funding…to create a small pool of competitive grant funds to be awarded on a merit basis available to mayors, county officials, and local leaders.

These grants would be awarded through a transparent process by a panel of representatives from local and state jurisdictions, ensuring that funds go to well-conceived projects with strong local support and potential for high return on investment.

With a program like this, many more communities could find success like Normal, IL, found with its Uptown Station. Normal used a grant from the competitive TIGER program to complete the funding picture for a multimodal station and central plaza that brought new life and economic activity to its town’s core. But the TIGER program is wildly oversubscribed, as one of the only ways local communities can directly access federal funds.

More communities need chances like that, and the current method of doling out federal funds just isn’t cutting it. Let’s put more resources and control in the hands of local communities and let the best projects win.

These ten congressional leaders got the message — but we need to ensure the rest of their colleagues do. Send a letter to your Senators and Representative in support of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act.

A key policy change will help local communities give their residents better access to transportation jobs

For more than 40 years, federal policies have prevented local residents from benefiting from the well-paying jobs that come with federally funded transportation projects. The USDOT just made a move to change that with a new pilot program.

Los Angeles transit construction

Longstanding federal statutes have prevented the localities receiving federal transportation grants from giving any preference to bidders who hire local residents, leaving a city or region without a legal way to ensure that a project boosts local employment by hiring qualified residents to do the work.

In early March, the USDOT took an important first step to change that, however. The agency is launching a one-year pilot program called Local Hire ”to evaluate the use of these requirements and determine their impact.”

Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx announced that after a recent Department of Justice clarification of federal bidding statutes, the U.S. Department of Transportation would now allow local recipients to use contracting requirements, including local hiring, so long as those requirements do not unduly restrict competition.

“Under this program, recipients of highway and transit grants will be allowed to use hiring programs in which preference is given to local residents, low-income workers, and veterans,” wrote Foxx. The DOT is requesting comments on this proposed rule for the pilot program by April 6^th.

Evaluating bids with hiring requirements is a typical practice in many places for projects funded with local or state dollars. But regulations governing federal dollars had prohibited the practice, citing concerns that it could undermine competition and drive up costs.

The advocates who have long argued that federal transportation spending needs to better benefit everyone called it a groundbreaking move.

“Research has shown that low-income workers and communities of color are vastly under-represented in jobs in the transportation sector,” wrote PolicyLink’s Anita Hairston. “This is a missed opportunity for connecting these communities to quality jobs, especially given the good wages and benefits that often accompany transportation work.”

Allowing a preference for hiring local workers is about giving states and local communities the power to ensure that qualified locals are first in line for jobs instead of seeing those jobs go to residents from elsewhere. This would help provide a one-two punch for economic development: good jobs for the local residents who most need them, and the long-term benefits of a new transportation investment.

This is a great step in the right direction, and we look forward to the results from the Local Hire pilot program.

You can send your comments to the USDOT by April 6 here.

State Farm is moving to concentrate thousands of employees in locations near transit

State Farm, one of the country’s largest insurance companies, is betting big on transit in three cities by building or expanding regional hubs on sites with good access to public transportation, reflecting a clear strategy to attract and retain talent who increasingly want to live and work in locations connected by transit.

A State Farm Insurance executive told a crowd in Tempe, AZ, that the company’s decision to build a huge new hub there was directly tied to the nearby availability of light rail and other transportation options that are attractive to recruiting talent.

“We’re designing these workplaces to be the future of State Farm,” chief operating officer Michael Tipsord said at an Arizona State University event. “We’re creating a live-work-play environment that will give employees easy access to their work from the neighboring communities.”

The new hub in Tempe will give State Farm enough space to expand their Phoenix-area workforce from 4,500 to more than 8,000, and will be a ten-minute walk from a Valley Light Rail stop right by Sun Devil stadium at the edge of the Arizona State University campus.

tempe state farm google map location

In Atlanta, State Farm is at the center of an enormous 2.2-million-square-foot development at Perimeter Center, already one of the biggest job hubs in the entire metro region, located immediately adjacent to a MARTA heavy rail station. State Farm’s plan to lease more than 500,000 square feet in a larger development has been making waves in economic development circles in Atlanta. They’re planning to hire another 3,000 employees to augment the 5,000 already in metro Atlanta, bringing new jobs to this region as well.

It’s likely to be part of consolidating workers presently at other sites in far-flung Atlanta suburbs that State Farm has already sold. In a region with notoriously bad traffic and jobs scattered all over the metro area, it’s hard to overstate the significance for Atlanta.

Atlanta State Farm Master plan state farm atlanta hq rendering

North of Dallas in Richardson, TX, State Farm is building a new hub from scratch on the main north-south light rail line that will anchor an enormous new mixed-use development. This site, with room to expand further, is so close to the light rail stop that the executives could probably hit golf balls off the roof of the new buildings and hit the tracks. And at over 2 million square feet of office space, the Dallas Business Journal called it “the largest lease in North Texas history.”

dallas state farm google map location

State Farm is just one of many companies coming to the realization that a key part of recruiting and retaining talented workers is having convenient access to public transportation and being better integrated into nearby communities rather than isolated in a 1970’s style office park.

Though plenty of companies are still located in those office parks and will continue to be, other notable employers are looking to move to the kinds of locations more in demand by their workforce.

Just last week, Marriott hotels, a major employer in the Washington, DC, region, announced they’ll be looking for a new headquarters in the area when the lease expires on their existing suburban campus. And one of the most important things they’ll be looking for in a new HQ as they try to keep up in the race for attracting talent?

“I think it’s essential we be accessible to Metro and that limits the options. I think as with many other things our younger folks are more inclined to be Metro-accessible and more urban,” chief executive Arne M. Sorenson told the Washington Post.

Expect more news like this in the coming months and years as more companies realize that locating in vibrant, walkable areas with good transit options are not only good for business, it’s critical for the companies trying to stay competitive.

If you see nothing else this spring, you’ve got to watch the trailer for ‘Infrastructure!’

On his late night HBO show, the British comic John Oliver took up the cause of our nation’s infrastructure — with help from some Hollywood A-listers (and a couple suggestions from us).

Goodness knows we’ve tried to get America’s attention on the issue, and no matter how many catchy infographics or compelling reports full of eye-popping statistics we produce, they’ll never reach as many people as Hollywood does with even the most mediocre movie.

That was John Oliver’s conclusion on his weekly show: Hollywood has been blowing up our infrastructure for decades, and viewers will turn out reliably to watch the destruction time after time in Die Hard 9 or The Day After the Day After Tomorrow. Oliver decided that what we really need is a blockbuster movie that can make routine preventive maintenance on a bridge just as awesome as Bruce Willis can make blowing it all up with a F-22.

Watch the whole segment, but the explosive trailer for a sure-to-be Hollywood summer blockbuster starts around 17 minutes in.

We were delighted to be able to provide some background information to the show’s producers as they prepared the piece, but they never told us about the movie. Next time, maybe we should trade information for a few minor roles in the actual movie?

States continue to take action to solve transportation funding crises

This year started with a transportation bang for many states across the country. In the last few weeks, four states in particular have made major strides in funding transportation and infrastructure projects as gas prices continue to remain low.

Georgia transportation officials have said they are facing an annual, billion-dollar funding gap to maintain their existing roads and bridges in good condition.Last week, the Georgia House passed HB 170which would make a few notable changes to their current funding structure, where they currently use both a sales tax and a per-gallon excise tax on gasoline. HB 170 would remove the current sales tax on gasoline entirely and increase the current 8.2 cents per-gallon rate by 21 cents for a new rate of 29.2 cents per gallon. The bill also requires the rate be adjusted annually to adapt to growing vehicle fuel efficiency and inflation in the cost of highway construction.

Besides the excise tax, the legislation would also impose new fees on private electric cars and commercial electric vehicles. The bill has been sent on to the state Senate.

In North Carolina, where gas tax rates are pegged to fuel prices, the House and Senate are moving competing bills to address an expected multi-million dollar shortfall resulting from cheaper gas and growing efficiency.

The Senate’s version, SB 20, eventually would raise the floor for the sinking gas tax from 21 cents per gallon to 35 cents per gallon, and increase the percentage rate on fuel from 7 percent to 9.9 percent. But it actually would cut the fuel tax by 2.5-cents per gallon between now and December. This would reduce transportation funding by $33 million between now and July, but is expected to raise an additional $237 million next year and $352 million a year by 2018.

Last week, the House passed a version of this bill that would reduce the current rate of 37.5 cents a gallon to 36 cents and hold it at that rate until the end of 2015. Delaying an expected drop in the adjustable, percentage gas tax rate (a consequence of falling gas prices) would bring in an additional $142 million during the next fiscal year (or approximately half of the Senate’s version).

In Utah, the Senate acted Monday to raise gas taxes for the first time in 18 years, increasing it by 5 cents per gallon this year, with an additional penny added each of the next four years. The state is currently looking at a deficit of $11 billion over the next two decades if the legislature does not act now. Consideration of the plan now moves to the House, where leaders are considering a slightly different approach.

Coming off a bold call to action in Governor Jay Inslee’s State of the State speech, Washington’s Senate on March 2 passed a $15 billion transportation package paid for by raising gasoline taxes by 11.7 cents over the next three years. It also would allow certain localities, including Seattle, to ask their voters for additional transit funding in the coming years.

Iowa, in the meantime, already has passed and enacted a transportation revenue package. Strongly supported by Governor Terry Branstad, the bill increases Iowa’s state gas tax by 10 cents per gallon. New funds will go entirely to highway projects, as required by a restrictive state constitutional requirement in place in Iowa and dozens of other states.

Watch this space for a more in-depth look into how business community and other supporters, along with legislative leaders, helped move the package to passage.

After years of depressed revenues and growing needs, states are making big moves on transportation this year. Whether or not they have long-term economic payoff will hinge on the degree to which their cities and towns get the resources and latitude they need to compete in the 21^st century.

Make sure to check back with our resource that tracks state transportation funding for the latest updates; you can also sign up to receive the latest news and updates.