News and Blog - Page 55 of 78 - Transportation For America

New training academy brings together key leaders from three ambitious regions

Twenty-one local leaders representing three regions with ambitious plans to invest in public transportation gathered today in Raleigh, NC, to kick off the first yearlong Transportation Innovation Academy, sponsored by T4America and TransitCenter.

Transportation Innovation Academy with logos

Similarly sized regions of 1 million-plus, Indianapolis, Nashville, and Raleigh all have notable plans to expand their transportation systems with additional bus rapid transit or rail service. In partnership with TransitCenter, T4America has created a new yearlong academy for a select group of key leaders from each region that was selected to participate. The academy is intended to share knowledge and best practices, visit cities that have inspiring success stories, and help develop and catalyze the local leadership necessary to turn these ambitious visions into reality.

Sheila Ogle of Ogle Enterprises (Raleigh), left, Shane Douglas of Collier International (Nashville) and Juan Gonzalez of KeyBank Indiana (Indy) go through an exercise led by Jarrett Walker (@humantransit) where teams design a transit network for a fictional city with a set budget — one way to experience the real-life trade-offs that transit planners and cities have to make.

All 21 participants (seven from each region) are in Raleigh this week for a two-day workshop with experts in the field and leaders from other cities with similar experiences. Each of the three cities will host an academy workshop, focusing on the particular specifics of that city while also learning valuable lessons that are applicable back home. The participants will also take a trip together to a fourth region that already has tasted the kind of success that these leaders would love to replicate.

Key business leaders from each region are part of each group, along with mayors and city/county council members, real estate pros, housing industry experts and local advocates.

The diverse group of members, assembled by each region’s team lead, recognizes the fact that making any big plan to invest in a new transit line or system requires buy-in from more than just a mayor and/or a few citizen groups. There has to be a shared vision with support from a wide range of civic players. In some regions, there might be a huge university presence. In others, it might be a big medical institution that anchors the local economy.

In all cases, getting everyone to the table and building a vision that everyone can share in are keys to success.

Transportation Innovation Academy Raleigh 3

In Indianapolis, action by the Indiana legislature and Governor Mike Pence cleared the way for metro Indianapolis counties to vote on funding a much-expanded public transportation network, with a major emphasis on bus rapid transit. Civic, elected and business leaders had been hard at work since 2009 producing an ambitious and inspiring IndyConnect plan, “the most comprehensive transportation plan — created with the most public input — our region has ever seen,” according to Mayor Greg Ballard in the foreword to our Innovative MPO report. Now the hard part comes as they build public and political will and decide what to include on a November 2016 ballot measure that would raise revenue from changes to local income taxes — a challenging revenue mechanism to say the least.

While transit expansion has more support in the region’s core, local leaders acknowledge they have an uphill battle in some suburban counties more skeptical of the merits of transit. Mayor Ballard and the diverse group of Indy businesses (including a booming healthcare industry) supporting IndyConnect understand how important this measure is for helping Indy be economically competitive in the future. Local leaders hope to position their city to attract young families who think Chicago is too expensive and to lure recent college grads back home to Indy. And a strong regional public transit system is lies at the core of their economic strategy.

After watching the region’s two other counties approve ballot measure to raise funds for a regional transit system originally envisioned by all three counties, the hosts of this week’s workshop in Raleigh (Wake County) hope to join the other two core metro counties in beginning a new regional rail transit system.

Adjoining Durham and Orange counties approved half-cent sales taxes in 2011 and 2012 to fund transit operations, improved bus service and a regional light rail line. Wake County Commissioners, meanwhile, had not allowed a question to raise funds for a regional transit system to go to the ballot. In fact, a handful of commissioners actively prevented the issue going forward, often stifling debate at times.

That could all change in 2015, as more than half of the county board was replaced last November. Four new supportive members replaced four who had consistently been on the other side of the issue, clearing the way for a potential ballot measure in Wake County. Raleigh Mayor Nancy McFarlane, who helped kick things off in the workshop this morning, has long supported a regional plan for transit.

Wake County is one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. and the county’s population is due to double by 2035. Yet this rapidly growing community with a notable high-tech, research, government and major university employers is one of the few major metro regions lacking a significant transit system. Just like Indianapolis, they will be crafting their plan and building consensus in 2015 as they shoot for a vote in 2016.

In Nashville, local advocates and elected leaders are still smarting from the setback on last year’s effort to kick-start a bus rapid-transit network with a line that would have connected neighborhoods and major employment centers along an east-west route through the city.

Inspired by watching and learning from some of their neighbors’ mistakes, the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce chose transit as a top priority six years ago, second only to improving public education. Local leaders there, including the recently departed Mayor Karl Dean, wanted to get out in front of the issue, rather than waiting 10 years after gridlock has overtaken the booming region. The business community and the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization have both been a key part of crafting the plan to make bus rapid transit a reality in Nashville, and members of the MPO, the Chamber, a and several businesses are all represented in their academy group.

Along with TransitCenter, we’re excited to see what the year will bring for these 21 participants and the up-and-coming regions that they represent. We’re going to have much more on these three cities this year, so stay tuned.

Local chambers from every state urge Congress to save transportation fund, improve it with smart policies

Adding a strong business voice to the call for a robust transportation program that helps build local economies, more than 260 regional chambers of commerce today sent a message to Congress to pass a long-term bill with smart reforms.

UPDATED: 3/3 11:23 a.m. with quotes from a Senate hearing this morning.

It’s a great letter, signed by a growing list of chamber execs from every state. It is significant on its own to see so many chambers join the chorus on the need for a well-funded, long-term transportation bill. But the chambers’ call for action goes beyond that to identify four key policies as keys to their competitive edge.

For one, they want to ensure that federal dollars can support all modes of transportation. Wherever the dollars can bring the greatest return, that’s where they need to go — flexibility is a must. They want to see a more strategic approach to moving freight that addresses urban-area bottlenecks for every mode of shipping and travel. They want to expand low-cost loans, known as TIFIA, which can be used to deliver projects faster, as Los Angeles is doing to build out its regional transit infrastructure.

But one request is worth reading in full:

Empower local communities and metropolitan regions with more authority over both federal funding and decision-making. Innovation is happening at the local level and yet our local decision makers don’t have enough of the tools, and control less than 10 percent of the funding, which limit the ability to advance key projects that can grow the economies in communities big and small.

These executives have their pulse on the local or regional business community, giving them a firsthand understanding of the importance of smart local investments in transportation. And they know how devastating it can be to their economy when pressing local needs are overlooked by the state or the feds.

The chambers agree that more transportation dollars, and control over those dollars, need to be directed to the local and regional level, where workers are trying to get to jobs and goods too often struggle to get to market.

Congress wouldn’t have to look far for at least one possible solution to this request: The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, introduced near the end of the last Congress, is expected to be reintroduced this month.

That same connection was made just a few minutes ago this morning by one of that bill’s Senate original sponsors this morning in a Commerce Committee hearing. Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) referenced this chamber letter in a question for Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx about the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act.

“It is to my understanding that later this morning more than 250 Chamber of Commerce executives will send to Congress a letter requesting action, number one, to fund the nation’s transportation system and secondly to empower local communities,” said Senator Wicker during the hearing. He continued:

“I know as a former Mayor, you were very interested in empowering local communities with more authority over federal funding and decision making. …Last year I was pleased to coauthor with Senator Booker the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, known as Wicker-Booker, to provide local governments of all sizes access and opportunity to participate in the federal transportation program. 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 chamber of commerce executives who will release this letter today…they represent all 50 states and both large and small communities from all across this country.”

Secretary Foxx responded to the question and said that the bill is “something that I think we should absolutely take a close look at, and I hope Congress will seriously consider it.”

Be sure to click through and read the letter, and you can see if your local chamber is on board with the handy map below they’ve included.

View the map and the rest of the information here.

New T4A report out today: Measuring What We Value

With pressure mounting to ensure our limited transportation dollars go as far as possible, a new report out today from Transportation for America takes a close look at the growing trend of using performance measures to establish clear priorities and better measure the success of our transportation investments.

First, it’s not too late to join us for the launch webinar this afternoon (Tuesday March 3rd) at 3:30 p.m. EST.

Secondly, this short report, featuring an introduction from former US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, is live and available now on our website, so go and download your copy now.

Now available at https://t4america.org/maps-tools/performance-measures-report/

How do we justify transportation expenditures? To many people, the perception is that project decisions are made in a murky, mysterious process, or, even worse, through a political process where only the projects with the most connections get funded. Further, it is not clear to the average person what all the spending gets them. With public confidence in government at low levels, it’s more important than ever to quantify the public benefits of transportation investment and let voters know what their money is going to buy — especially when attempts are being made to raise new money for transportation to fill the gap.

Transitioning to a more performance-based system of transportation investment was one of the key reforms of MAP-21 and could represent a sea change in how funding decisions are made and our transportation system performs.

This report and recommended framework looks at the innovative DOTs and MPOs experiencing early successes in measuring the performance of their transportation system and making investments based on getting the best bang for the buck, and also lays out smart recommended goals and measures from T4America for making this transition.

Download your copy today.

Share this report with others:

Updated House passenger rail bill is identical to last year’s promising compromise bill

It’s back! After the encouraging release of a compromise bill to govern the nation’s passenger rail policy in the last Congress, a nearly identical bill was introduced and passed out of committee this month and could be debated on the House floor as early as next week.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio on the House T&I Committee, and Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano on the rail subcommittee, the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act was introduced and advanced through the full House committee.

This new version is identical to the bill from the last Congress; a compromise bill that recognizes the benefits of a truly national passenger rail system and seeks to improve it rather dwell on drawbacks.

Most importantly, it preserves a national system of state-supported and long-distance routes and authorizes funding for the system that is consistent with the recent appropriations for Amtrak. While passenger rail certainly needs far more investment than it’s getting to truly prosper and meet the burgeoning demand, we were encouraged to see representatives who once had a hard time finding common ground agreeing on some important fundamentals.

We’re hopeful that this important issue will be debated on the House floor in the coming weeks.

Because this bill is basically identical to last year’s version, our summary of that bill from September 2014 can be found below.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 (PRRIA) does indeed lower the authorized amount of funding for Amtrak by 40 percent from in the level last adopted in 2008, capping it between $1.4B and $1.5B for each of the next four years. Although that looks like a step backward, in reality Congress never appropriated the full amount of authorized funds. Because there was no dedicated revenue source passenger rail funding was subjected to a contentious debate over general fund spending each year. The new bill yields to that reality and sets funding at the levels of the last several years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that we’ve had budget proposals in the House over the last two years that appropriated between $1.0 or $1.1 billion for Amtrak — $400-500 million less than this reauthorization proposal from the same chamber.

There are some other interesting and positive changes worth highlighting.

The bill authorizes new competitive grant programs for the Northeast Corridor and for the national network. These programs are authorized at $150 million each for the next four years. The NEC program requires that states put up their own money equal to the federal grant, and the projects that can be funded must be on a priority project list to be developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The bill will take the important first steps toward restoring rail service to the Gulf Coast, a region that has been disconnected from the national network since Hurricane Katrina forced the suspension of rail service along the coast. It’s an encouraging sign that the committee recognizes the value not only of preserving our current rail network, but expanding it to serve additional regions.

Some of the overall structure for funding also changes under this bill. Congress currently funds Amtrak under two programs: operating, and capital/debt service. This year, Congress funded these two programs at $1.39 billion. The bill restructures these programs into a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund and a National Network Account at a total of $1.412 billion. The NEC account may be used only for that corridor and permits Amtrak to reinvest operational revenue there. The idea of privatizing the Northeast Corridor is off the table, at least for now.

The bill includes several requirements intended to create greater transparency in Amtrak’s financial reporting, increasing accountability and oversight over budgets and financial decisions. Calls by some members of Congress for increased competition in passenger rail were answered with a new pilot program (limited to two routes) that will allow rail carriers that own track used by Amtrak to submit a competitive bid along with Amtrak to provide the same level of passenger service there. The winning bidder would receive the right to provide passenger service for 5 years, with subsidies that would decline over time.

This bill does not contain everything that Transportation for America has called for, however.

For example, there’s still no dedicated funding source identified, which means that Amtrak will still have to fight for funding every year in the annual appropriations process. And some of the provisions related to Amtrak’s finances and operations could lead to changes in service down the road, such as the requirement that Amtrak contract with an independent entity to develop a new methodology for determining which routes to serve.

Still, in a Congress marked by partisan gridlock, we’re hopeful that this encouraging compromise in the House can lay the groundwork for creating a dedicated funding source for rail service that will put it on the same footing as other transportation modes.

West coast port closures example of the worst case scenario

The eight-month labor dispute that left fully loaded container ships anchored off the west coast for weeks caused an “epic” back-up that underscored just how critical the smooth movement of freight is to the nation’s economy.

An apparent settlement between port operators and unions representing 20,000 dockworkers has begun to untie the knot, but effects are likely to be felt for some time.

The slowdown has had a profound impact on agriculture, retail, technology, and myriad of other industries whose products ship through the 29 ports on the west coast. The trans-Pacific maritime trade came to a virtual halt during that period.

“Factories are shutting down due to non-delivery of component parts; citrus growers, nut exporters and beef exporters are getting slaughtered on the export side; and truckers are wasting endless hours as they await permission to retrieve cargo,” reported The Hill.

The shutdowns also had a sizable impact on the rail, air and trucking operations that distribute freight from ports to the rest of us, who now are straining under the sudden onslaught of goods. At full productivity, thousands of trucks a day carry off 40 percent of the country’s container cargo, starting the “first-mile” of transporting goods through an extensive highway and rail network.

The slowdown raised the profile of first-mile connections, but poor “last-mile” connections can have similar impacts: It currently takes nearly as long for freight to travel across the city of Chicago as it does to reach Chicago from Los Angeles. Much of that delay has to do with the conflicts between commuter traffic and freight movement. It lacks the headline-grabbing impact of a photo of dozens of container ships anchored in the background of an L.A. beach scene, but it’s an ongoing and damaging situation.

Today, we have no national comprehensive freight policy to pick the smartest investments — regardless of mode — to best move goods from Point A to Point B. As we stumble closer to MAP-21’s expiration date in May, we have an opportunity to change the way we depend on just a few means of transport.

Lawmakers need to ensure the capacity for long-haul routes, especially where they collide with population centers. Some metro regions are working to address this by giving residents other travel options to clear space for freight, but they need more federal resources to do the job. We need to direct both policies and resources toward addressing the costly and time-consuming bottlenecks in connecting the ships to the ports and the ports to the rail and truck yards. This can be achieved by targeting funding through competitive grant programs that ensure all appropriate modes are eligible as well as projects that relieve these bottlenecks and improve both first- and last-mile connections.

MAP-21’s reauthorization should also incentivize and support regional planning for freight movement, to ensure that these bottlenecks no longer threaten our economy.

Update on 17 states moving to raise money for transportation

From Washington to South Carolina, 17 state legislatures (with others likely to follow) are debating plans to raise new revenue for transportation after a decade in which their primary funding sources shrank and federal support became increasingly uncertain. See the current state of play in our freshly updated national roundup. (Updated 2/25/15)

View our updated resource tracking state transportation funding plans here.

Among those 17 states, Iowa, Georgia, and Washington have been in the news over the last two weeks due to significant progress made toward producing a funding package in their state legislatures.

In Washington, a (still contentious) plan currently before the full Senate would raise the gas tax by a total of 11.7 cents per gallon by 2018. In Iowa, Gov. Terry Branstad just signaled that he would likely support a ten-cent increase in the state gas tax if the legislature can come together to pass one and send it to his desk for approval. In Georgia, the House Transportation Committee passed a bill to replace the state’s sales tax on gasoline with a 29.2 cents per gallon tax and give counties more authority to tax gasoline; floor debate has been postponed while supporters work to round up votes.

Update: Iowa’s package passed both House and Senate on Tuesday afternoon. Link. -Ed.

Most states rely heavily on their taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel to provide their share of transportation budgets, and those sources have taken a hit as vehicles have become more efficient, per-person driving mileage has declined and construction costs rise along with inflation — the same forces that have been squeezing federal funding and the 18.4 cents-per-gallon gas tax. Unchanged since 1993, the federal gas tax has lost approximately one-third of its purchasing power. In 2012, Congress did something it had not done in decades, passing a federal transportation law that failed to increase funding. In 2014, Congress punted on a long-term solution, scouring the couch cushions once again to scrape together enough funding to keep the program hobbling along until May 2015.

Even if Congress comes through, the aging infrastructure in need of repair in many states and the demands coming from demographic and economic changes mean states need more revenue, not less. (And yes, many states also need to dramatically reform how they spend the dollars that they have, which can go a long way toward building the public confidence required to successfully taxpayers for additional money.)

One key lesson worth noting up front that we shared yesterday: Legislators who supported such moves have met with little to no pushback at the polls. Our updated analysis of November’s election data should be instructive for the legislators currently weighing action: 90 percent of legislators supporting revenue increases in ten states since 2012 won their re-election bids.

We’ll be following the action in these states closely and likely adding more to the list, so stay tuned.

Voters overwhelmingly re-elect candidates who raise transportation revenue, analysis of general election results shows

Continuing a trend observed in the primaries, an updated T4America analysis of November’s election data shows that 90 percent of legislators supporting revenue increases in ten states won their re-election bids. Perhaps that knowledge will help legislators in 17 states (and counting) considering similar plans take similar action this year.

Share this graphic with others:

View our full page tracking and summarizing the data on these votes.

The conventional wisdom has been that supporting any sort of tax increase is a political death sentence, but recent data perhaps suggests the opposite conclusion — at least with regard to tax increases intended to invest in transportation.

Since 2012 at least ten states have done the “unthinkable” and either increased gas taxes or otherwise raised significant transportation funding through legislative action: Arkansas, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming.

Transportation for America has kept a close eye on those votes at the state level to raise revenue and the subsequent response from voters in the elections that followed. We first examined this data after the primary elections in 2014, when supportive state legislators won their primaries at an amazing 98 percent clip. With a full election cycle behind us, how did supportive state legislators fare?

A total of 961 legislators in these ten states ran for re-election after voting yes on a measure to raise transportation revenues by some mechanism.
23 candidates lost their primary election, resulting in a 98 percent success rate in the primaries for those that voted yes and ran for re-election.
939 supportive legislators reached the general election*.
71 supportive candidates lost in the general election for a total of 868 supportive legislators retaining their seats.
The total re-election rate for supportive legislators who ran is 868/961, or 90 percent.

*1 Independent candidate (Adam Greshin in Vermont) did not run in a primary due to lack of party registration.

View our full page tracking and summarizing the data on these votes.

This encouraging trend could serve as a powerful object lesson for the legislators in the 17 states and counting currently considering legislative plans to raise the gas tax or other tax/fee increases for additional transportation revenue.

UPDATE: Better bang for the buck — learn more about performance measurement

UPDATE 2/18/15: The release webinar has been rescheduled for March 3, 2015 from 3:30-4:30 p.m. EST. The report release and webinar were delayed due to rough winter weather. The registration link is once again active, so go ahead and register today!

Developing a better system to measure the performance of our transportation spending is an idea that’s gaining momentum, and we want to help you be on the cutting edge.

On [UPDATED] Tuesday, March 3, Transportation for America is releasing a new report on performance measures called “Measuring What We Value: Setting Priorities and Evaluating Success in Transportation.” To accompany the release and help explain an issue that’s even more wonky than other issues in the world of transportation planning — we’ve organized a helpful webinar on March 3rd from 3:30-4:30 p.m. EST.

We’ll discuss the report, hear experts explain the benefits of measuring the performance of our transportation spending and share some examples of real-world success. Register now.

Those presenting during the webinar include:

Beth Osborne, Senior Policy Advisor for T4America, formerly Deputy Director for Policy at USDOT.
Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)
Jim Hubbell, Principal Planner, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)
Erika Young, Director of Strategic Partnerships, T4America

Why is this report necessary?

This report looks at the innovative DOTs and MPOs experiencing early successes in measuring the performance of their transportation system and making investments based on getting the best bang for the buck, and also lays out smart recommended goals and measures from T4America for making this transition.

Click here to be notified about the report’s release on March 3rd and sign-up for our newsletter to stay up-to-date on all report releases.

Rep. Shuster and Sec. Foxx address the importance of local control in today’s Twitter town hall

The chairman of a key House transportation committee and the nation’s transportation secretary today held a “Twitter town hall”, and what rose to the top? Among other things, local access to the federal resources that too often fail to trickle down to them.

Shuster Foxx Twitter town hall 2

Rep. Bill Shuster (D-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx took tweeted questions (hashtag #StuckInTraffic) for about an hour after Fox appeared at a committee hearing on the next transportation bill.

Representative Rodney Davis (R-IL) kicked things off with a question that gets at the heart of the issue many have with the federal transportation program: How do we get more money in the hands of communities to address the local issues taxpayers care most about?

How do you plan to help our small communities under 200k (many rural areas) gain access to their share of transportation $? #StuckInTraffic

— US Rep Rodney Davis (@RodneyDavis) February 11, 2015

Admittedly, the question was somewhat rhetorical. Rep. Davis is a key champion — along with Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) – of the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, , which would give local communities greater access to federal transportation funds to invest in their homegrown transportation plans and projects.

Without endorsing the bill per se, Chairman Shuster (R-PA) implied that he also wants to see local communities get access to the resources they need; from the money they pay into the federal program:

.@RodneyDavis #stuckintraffic Coming from a district that has only communities under 50k, I’m very concerned that there’s (1/2)

— Chairman Shuster (@Transport) February 11, 2015

@RodneyDavis access for share of transpo dollars. Important to work w/ states & local gov to make sure that happens (2/2) #stuckintraffic — Chairman Shuster (@Transport) February 11, 2015

During the earlier hearing, Rep. Davis brought up the importance of local officials having control over decisions of their communities while asking questions of Secretary Foxx.

“I had a lot of input from my local officials, and they want more local control. They want a dedicated funding source for more local projects, so that they can work together with our federal officials. And with that more local control of transportation dollars is a top priority of mine. And in the new highway bill where do you see local communities to share in funding?”

The current federal program doesn’t always work for local communities. Local governments are too often at the mercy of decisions being by the state, made far from where they live. The Davis-Titus proposal would bring the federal program closer to the people by allowing local governments more decision-making power and greater access to resources.

Secretary Foxx noted that the overwhelming popularity of the TIGER program is another signal that the federal program should do more for these places.

I think this one of the reasons why having a strong, robust TIGER program continue is very important, because that has been an area where local communities have had the ability to reach for federal funding directly and get it. As you well know, local communities are becoming very creative when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done. We should continue to encourage that experimentation.

While states and local communities are “very creative when it comes to figuring out ways to get things done,” they shouldn’t have to be. Last year, applicants for TIGER requested 15 times the $600 million available for the program, or a total $9 billion for needed transportation projects.

Without passing legislation like the bipartisan Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, these problems are only just going to get worse. We’re hoping that Rep. Shuster and Sec. Foxx heard that message loud and clear today.

TODAY at 12 p.m. EST: Tweet your thoughts to Secretary Foxx and Chairman Shuster

As we inch closer to MAP-21’s expiration date and the insolvency of the nation’s transportation trust fund, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is partnering with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) to host a Twitter “Town Hall” today at 12 p.m. EST to hear from the public on the issue.

You can participate by following along using the hashtag #StuckInTraffic and by following Secretary Anthony Foxx (@SecretaryFoxx), Rep. Shuster (@Transport), and Transportation for America (@T4America) on Twitter.

This is a great chance to pepper these two influential leaders with some smart questions on the future of the country’s transportation program. While Rome wasn’t built in a day, we know that hearing a few recurring themes for an hour today will definitely have an impact.

So help us fill their timelines with smart questions. While you certainly should ask anything you like, would you consider amplifying a consistent theme by tweeting some of these sample messages we’ve created?

Both of these leaders have made it clear they want a long-term transportation bill with stable funding, but the time is now to start talking about smarter policies for spending those dollars.. Stay tuned with us at @T4America to follow along today.

15 issues to watch in ’15, Part III: People

The members of Congress who will rewrite the nation’s transportation policies and attempt to raise funding to keep the program afloat is just one important discussion taking place this year. More states will continue efforts to raise transportation revenue and mayors in communities of all sizes will move forward key transportation initiatives; among others on a long list of people with an important role to play in 2015. Here are five that rose to the top, but tell us who you think we missed.

Ed: As the year began, we thought it would be fun to identify 15 people, places and trends worth keeping an eye on the next 12 months. We covered this list in three posts — read about five policy issues worth watching on Capitol Hill in 2015, and five places worth keeping an eye on this year.

People

1. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

The senior Senator from Oklahoma is once again leading the Senate’s powerful Environment and Public Works Committee, which is responsible for the largest portion of the Senate’s transportation reauthorization. Back in 2012, as the ranking member, he teamed up with then-Chairman Barbara Boxer to write MAP-21 and shepherd it through their committee and Senate passage. They worked in a bipartisan fashion to reach agreement with their House colleagues on the version of MAP-21 enacted into law in July 2012.

Sen. Inhofe also chaired the committee during the passage of MAP-21’s predecessor (SAFETEA-LU) and has regained the chairmanship for the 114th Congress. A staunch advocate for the federal role in investing in infrastructure, he has been on record this year saying an increase in the gas tax may be the fairest way to charge users for fixing and improving the nation’s transportation system.

After a few years on the back burner, the question of funding and rescuing the nation’s transportation fund from insolvency will be front and center in 2015, and Sen. Inhofe will be right in the middle of it. While we know roughly where he stands on the issue of funding, the bigger questions have to do with policy: Will he keep MAP-21’s policies largely intact? Will he work closely once again with Senator Boxer (who is back as ranking member) to write the bill? Will he support the inclusion of a policy like the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act to improve opportunities for local elected officials to access the program? However those questions are answered, he will be at the center of the debate in the Senate this year, and will likely have his stamp on any authorization enacted this Congress.

2. Representative Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)

You may not have heard his name much yet, but the seven-term representative from the Miami region has been handed the reigns to a powerful House subcommittee overseeing transportation (and housing) issues. Replacing the retiring Tom Latham (R-IA) on the Appropriations Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Subcommittee, he’ll have direct involvement in the budgeting for the U.S. DOT each year.

While Highway Trust Fund spending levels are largely determined by the current surface transportation authorization (MAP-21 in this case), Rep. Diaz-Balart will still approve annual spending levels for the department at large, including key discretionary (non-trust fund) programs like the popular TIGER grant program, transit funding, and passenger rail programs. His mantra so far in interviews has been accountability and rooting out potential waste, but he also represents a district with a greater range of transportation options to move people and goods than his predecessor on the subcommittee. Time will tell, but there is reason to hope that Diaz-Balart will be supportive of broader transportation interests in the annual transportation appropriation bill.

3. Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan

Pushing the legislature on this package is nothing new for Gov. Snyder, who has been a strong advocate on critical transportation issues in Michigan. He released a smart plan to invest in infrastructure statewide and raise new revenue all the way back in 2011. He supported the 2012 fight in the legislature to create a long overdue regional transit agency for Detroit to organize and catalyze investment there. Passenger rail statewide has had a significant boost with help from Gov. Snyder as well. Michigan has received about $500 million for the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac passenger rail route, including funds to purchase track so that more trains can run at higher speeds for longer distances.

In May, voters will decide on increasing the sales tax for schools and municipalities in one ballot question. The other tax changes in the package are contingent on the passage of that referendum. Annually, these bills will bring in an additional $1.3 billion for transportation. It’s a critical vote looming in May. We’ll continue to keep our eye on Gov. Snyder and this important decision.

4. Mayor Marilyn Strickland of Tacoma, Washington

Many states and localities are working to raise additional transportation revenues of their own, but they are doing so with the expectation that federal aid will continue. Few have expressed the need better than Tacoma Mayor Marilyn Strickland did in this terrific OnPoint interview:

A lot of the projects that have helped Tacoma have been a direct result of assistance we’ve received from Washington, D.C. We remediated our waterfront, we’ve done great infrastructure projects. We’re trying to expand our light rail in Tacoma, and we will absolutely, positively need federal help to do that. We recently met with Senator Patty Murray and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx in Seattle two days ago, and we talked about the need for the federal government to continue to invest in infrastructure.

Mayor Strickland is as proud that Tacoma is part of the Seattle metro area (“We aren’t in its shadow, we bask in its glow.”) as she is of the city’s own blue-collar, working-class identity. But as it becomes more entrepreneurial and diversifies into healthcare and technology, Tacoma hopes to stay competitive by investing in the kinds of transportation options that can help retain and attract a younger, talented workforce. Expanding the regional light rail system that now ends at SeaTac airport, halfway between the two cities, is a big part of that.

The Sound Transit 3 package would enable the localities to raise a part of the funding to make it happen. If that passes the legislature, the measure would go to Puget Sound voters in November of 2016. With local money in hand, strong federal commitment in the form of New Starts and/or TIGER support would leverage those local dollars to ensure the Link light rail finally reaches Tacoma and beyond to Dupont, connecting it to the regional light rail transit network.

Mayor Strickland knows how important that connection is for the future of her city, and the level of cooperation required to make it a reality:

Having support at the federal level really helps us do some things that we need to do. And, again, it’s about connecting the dots. When we have better public transportation options, we are more attractive to people who are creative who want to come live in our cities. When we have a talent pool like that we are more likely to attract high paying jobs. And, so, you have to connect the dots between federal government, state government, and local government.

5. Mayor Kasim Reed of Atlanta, Georgia

Buoyed by the long-awaited opening of the city’s first streetcar line in decades, Mayor Reed is bouncing back from the disappointing defeat of a regional transportation ballot measure in 2012 and moving forward an Atlanta-only bond plan to raise revenues and make a dent in citywide infrastructure needs. While Renew Atlanta 2015 goes beyond transportation, it will allow the city to make some much-needed repairs and improvements, “including repair and construction of complete streets projects, sidewalks, bridges, and curb ramps.”

Mayor Reed will certainly be focused on turning out the votes for this measure on March 17, but he’s also looking beyond and dreaming much bigger. After the disappointment of the T-SPLOST regional tax referendum, which he called “the biggest failure of my political career,” he has often suggested that Atlanta might instead pair up with a few other nearby municipalities on a separate measure to raise funds for transportation. City of Atlanta and Dekalb county voters strongly favored the 2012 measure, so a joint Atlanta-DeKalb plan could be a possibility to watch for discussion of in 2015.

They have a lot of needs to meet. The short streetcar line is just the first phase of a longer planned line. MARTA is just now getting back to pre-recession levels of service. And Atlanta’s one-of-a-kind Beltline plan for parks and transit lines circling the city in an old railroad corridor has years of investment required to see the entire thing come to fruition.

Even if Atlanta manages to pass the bond measure and take on a more ambitious local funding measure to make more significant transportation investments happen, city leaders still will be looking to the feds for support. After years of funding the decentralization of cities like Atlanta for decades through various federal programs, mayors like Mayor Reed will be counting on support from the federal government to aid their efforts to reverse that trend.

Rep. Blumenauer introduces plan to raise the federal gas tax

Supported by 23 cosponsors in the House, the Chairman of Transportation for America and a plethora of national construction, transportation and labor groups, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) alongside Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced the UPDATE Act to increase the federal gas tax by 15 cents over three years and index it to the inflation.

T4America chair Mayor John Robert Smith speaking at a press conference announcing the UPDATE Act on Wednesday, February 4, 2015.

Speaking at a press conference this afternoon following the bill’s (HR 680) introduction earlier this week, Rep. Blumenauer referred to the complicated plans to raise one-time revenue for transportation through corporate tax reform or repatriation of overseas profits and noted that raising the gas tax is “the simplest, easiest to pass, and the only one giving long term stability.”

His plan is certainly the simplest to understand: an increase of five cents in the federal tax on gasoline and diesel for three consecutive years, and then setting it to rise or fall with inflation. Even without more fuel efficient vehicles or Americans driving less overall, inflation has eroded more than a third of the gas tax’s buying power over the past two decades. This plan puts the onus to pay for improved transportation systems on those that use them each day, reinforcing the principle of the users paying for the system.

While all of the 23 cosponsors so far are Democrats and many House GOP leaders have ruled out a gas tax increase, plans like this (or other similar plans to raise revenue) don’t have to be a political third rail. T4America co-chair Mayor John Robert Smith spoke directly to that point at the press conference today:

“When you analyze the election results from the 10 states that raised revenue for transportation since 2012, 98% of those legislators who voted in favor of raising revenue for transportation were re-elected in their next primary. That’s worth repeating, 98% of legislators who stood up and led to raise revenue for transportation were re-elected by their constituents. That is a message members of Congress need to hear and their constituents cannot wait much longer for them to act.”

We do indeed need greater revenue to stabilize the nation’s nearly-insolvent transportation fund, but we also need better policies and reforms to ensure those limited dollars are spent on the projects that provide the highest return. Measuring the performance of our limited transportation dollars to better understand what our dollars get us each year would be a smart place to start. And a forward-looking plan to direct more of that money down to where it’s needed most would be a great companion to any plan to shore up the nation’s transportation funding.

Mayor Smith, as the former mayor of Meridian, MS, understands those challenges facing local communities well, and still hears about them regularly from his former colleagues.

“I’ve been in local elected office for 20 years and early on I realized people back home would be forgiving and will back their incumbent when they see them stand up and lead on issues essential to their wellbeing,” Mayor Smith said at the event. “In Meridian transportation is one of those issues. And transportation is certainly an essential issue for this nation’s wellbeing,”

“Every credible independent report indicates that we are not meeting the demands of our stressed and decaying infrastructure system – roads, bridges and transit,” said Rep. Blumenauer in his press release.

“Congress hasn’t dealt seriously with the funding issue for over 20 years and it’s time to act. The gas tax used to be an efficient road user fee, but with inflation and increased fuel efficiency, especially for some types of vehicles, there is no longer a good relationship between what road users pay and how much they benefit. The average motorist is paying about half as much per mile as they did in 1993. There’s a broad and persuasive coalition that stands ready to support Congress…we just need to give them something to support.”

We support Rep. Blumenauer’s efforts because it provides a long-term, efficient, and sustainable funding source that our local government and businesses can plan for and rely on. With the May 31 deadline of the existing transportation looming on the horizon and states like Tennessee and Arkansas already delaying projects or considering doing so in light of the uncertainty, it’s important that Congress act sooner rather than later.

Lessons from recent successes: Winning State Funding for Transportation

Growing again after a long economic slump that left a huge backlog of unmet needs, a dozen or more states are moving now to raise revenue for transportation. What can they learn from the other states that acted in the last year or two? Our new report, out today, draws out seven key lessons.

Transportation for America has closely followed these efforts in state legislatures to put transportation funding on sound footing and today we are releasing Winning State Funding for Transportation: Lessons from Recent Successes. This short report highlights some of the big-picture keys to success gleaned from those states, with an in-depth look at successful campaigns in Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wyoming, and Vermont.

State Transportation Funding report cover

Click here to download the full report.

States face an increasing challenge in funding their mounting transportation needs. Their primary sources of revenue — taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — haven’t kept up with needs as vehicles become more efficient, per-person driving mileage declines, and construction costs rise along with inflation.

Though the financial picture varies from state to state, this is a pressing issue from coast to coast. Twenty-four states have gone a decade or more without raising their gas taxes. Aging infrastructure is in need of desperate repair and the demands coming from demographic and economic changes mean states need more revenue, not less.

Since 2012, 12 states have responded to that challenge by enacting new revenue sources for transportation, while dozens more have considered such legislation. And the list of states taking up this issue right now during 2015 legislative sessions is just as long.

It is important to note that all of the states that have acted thus far, and those working to do so this year or beyond are doing so in expectation of ongoing federal support.

One key lesson worth noting up front: Legislators who supported such moves have met with little to no pushback at the polls. In fact, a Transportation for America analysis of the most recent election cycle found that 98 percent of the supportive lawmakers up for re-election won the primary following their vote – and we found no evidence that any lost as a direct result of their vote.

So far this year, nine governors spanning from Washington to Connecticut, representing both parties, have stepped out in favor of raising transportation revenue publicly in their State of the State addresses. Their leadership follows a trend of bucking the conventional wisdom and supporting new revenue to invest in transportation.

The strategies and examples discussed in this report are intended to be a helpful guide for those emerging leaders as they navigate the unique context of their own individual states to pass transportation revenue legislation, and in turn, set an example for others to follow in the future

Read or download the report today. Visit our home for information on states attempting or succeeding at passing new funding legislation, and sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

Obama budget cues start of serious negotiations over transportation funding

With the release of his budget proposal yesterday, President Obama at last offered some specifics on his plan to use the repatriation of taxable corporate profits to fund transportation. In doing so, he staked out a starting point for real-world negotiations over a possible six-year transportation bill – the first time such a prospect has seemed remotely realistic in six years.

His gambit joins a burgeoning set of transportation funding proposals in Congress (more about these later in this post), another hopeful sign that lawmakers are taking the issue seriously.

The less good news, of course, is that those negotiations over tax reform and transportation funding – to say nothing of policy – are almost certain to last beyond the May 31 expiration of the current law, MAP-21. That means another extension and lingering uncertainty until this can be wrestled to the ground.

With the addition of revenues from taxing American profits parked overseas, the Obama budget looks to invest $94.7 billion in fiscal 2016, nearly double today’s level of just over $50 billion. Invested along the lines of his GROW America Act, this would represent a 25 percent increase for the highway program and more than 70 percent for transit, which today is wildly oversubscribed.

All told, the Obama plan would authorize $478 billion for a six-year program of investment, $176 billion over the levels of MAP-21, and $76 billion more than the four-year version of GROW America released last spring. About $240 billion of that is from expected gas tax revenue. Placing a mandatory 14 percent tax on roughly $2 trillion in earnings held abroad by U.S. multinationals would yield about $238 billion, the Administration estimates.

The plan would make the TIGER grant program a permanent feature, funded at $1.25 billion a year, and would continue funding planning grants for planning walkable neighborhoods around transit stops. It also would establish passenger rail and multimodal accounts within the former Highway Trust Fund (HTF), now reconstituted as the Transportation Trust Fund. It would create a multimodal freight program, funded at $1 billion in 2016, and continue to promote the accelerated, inter-agency reviews to get projects moving faster.

While Republicans criticized many features of the Administration budget, the notion of using corporate tax reform to fund transportation seems to have growing bipartisan support, as support for raising the gas tax struggles to take hold.

Last week, the unlikely pairing of Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced they would introduce the “Invest in Transportation Act”, a plan to offer an enticement tax rate of 6.5 percent on corporate earnings returned to the U.S. from abroad, with all proceeds going to the Highway Trust Fund. Because it is voluntary, the exact amount is uncertain, but the senators have said they hope it can make up for flat or declining gas tax revenues.

On the House side, Reps. John Delaney (D-MD) and Richard Hanna (R-NY) have introduced the Infrastructure 2.0 Act, (HR 625), under which existing overseas profits would be subject to a mandatory, one-time 8.75 percent tax. This is expected to yield $120 billion, sending enough of that to the Highway Trust Fund to cover the gap between anticipated gas tax in-take and spending at current levels plus modest growth.

The bill also directs $50 billion of the $120 billion to capitalize an infrastructure bank called the American Infrastructure Fund (AIF) that could provide financing to transportation, energy, communications, water and education projects. Rep. Delaney establishes an AIF in another bill submitted last year along with Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who reintroduced their “Partnership to Build America Act” (HR 413) on Jan 20. State and local government entities, nonprofit infrastructure providers, private parties, and public-private partnerships all would be eligible to apply for AIF financing. Through bond sales, the fund would be leveraged at a 15:1 ratio to provide up to $750 billion in loans or guarantees.

Not everyone in Congress has given up on the bird-in-the-hand funding source – the gas tax. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), is set to reintroduce his UPDATE Act, which would hike the per-gallon tax by 15 cents, with 5 cent increases unfolding over the next three years, and index the overall tax to inflation. In the Senate, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) is working with a bipartisan group to introduce a gas-tax bill, expected later this month.

Although more of an aspirational bill than a funding measure, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) last week introduced his Rebuild America Act. Designed to illustrate the scale of investment the senator says we need, it calls for providing an additional $1 trillion in infrastructure investments over the next five years for roads, bridges and transit, passenger rail, airports, water infrastructure, marine ports and inland waterways, national parks infrastructure, and broadband and electrical grid upgrades.

It would add $735 billion to surface transportation investments over the next 8 years, with an additional $75 billion a year for the HTF. It also would capitalize a National Infrastructure Bank with $5 billion per year for fiscal 2015-19, estimated to stimulate more than $250 billion in investments. It provide for $2 billion more for TIFIA loans and $5 billion a year for TIGER.

And it makes all the other proposals look like skinflints in comparison.

At last, Congress and the White House appear to have moved transportation to a front-burner issue this year. With the Obama proposal as a strong starting place, here’s hoping negotiations proceed swiftly and in good faith so our communities can continue to plan, maintain and build for continued prosperity.

Governors step out in favor of raising transportation revenue

States across the country are facing huge deficits in their own transportation budgets — a problem compounded by the uncertainty over the support they’ve always received from the federal transportation fund, which is now just months away from insolvency. However, over the last month or so, at least nine governors have highlighted plans to raise new state transportation revenues in their State of the State addresses, marking the issue as a top priority.

NEWSLETTER - Governor State of the State on revenue While their speeches are notable for their willingness to take a stand on the issue, these governors (and many state legislators) are stepping out on the issue because states face growing needs and static or falling revenues from state as well as federal sources.

As of press time, six Republicans and three Democrats spanning from Washington to Connecticut have come out in support of raising transportation funding at the state level by various mechanisms in the hopes of providing stable and reliable revenue for years to come. And they’re counting on Congress to do their part and come through with reliable federal funding as well.

After looking over the transcripts of all nine speeches, two major themes stood out: the importance to a state’s economic growth and development of a well-run, well-funded transportation system, and the financial and public safety cost of poorly maintained infrastructure.

After campaigning on the issue, returning Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy (D) introduced his plan for a 30-year overhaul of the state’s entire transportation system, including the creation of a “transportation lockbox” to ensure transportation revenues are spent on transportation projects. He has promised to propose specific revenue mechanisms in his February 18^th budget address.

“We know that transportation and economic growth are bound together,” Governor Dayton said on January 7^th. “States that make long term investments in their infrastructure can have vibrant economies for generations. States that don’t, will struggle. It’s that simple.

Transportation connects us – literally – community to community, state to state, nation to nation. It connects us economic opportunity, and it connects us to another.”

Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) proposed raising transportation fees to help address the state’s ever increasing number of deficient bridges and poorly maintained highways, suggesting that spending some now will save more in the future. While calling for greater investments for transportation and infrastructure in his speech, he did not address any specific plans to do so, only saying to his fellow legislative colleagues, “I am not going to stand here and tell you how to swallow this elephant.”

“I fully understand the misgivings of some about higher transportation costs. But there is something to be said for the old adage about being ‘penny wise and pound foolish.’ In fact, every dollar we invest now in our roads and bridges will save motorists and taxpayers $6 to $14 later.”

In Iowa, with 35 percent of their annual transportation budget coming from the 19 cents per gallon gas tax, Republican Governor Terry Branstad is concerned about the state’s ability to adequately build and maintain the state’s infrastructure and transportation system with that source. The governor did say before his State of the State address that part of the solution could be allowing local governments to add their own gas tax for local projects and transportation needs. He expressed hope that lawmakers and stakeholders could come to a consensus on a specific solution.

“Over the past few years, rhetoric has trumped results when it comes to action on infrastructure funding for Iowa. A recently completed Battelle study demonstrates the need for us to take a hard look at adequate road funding. The study shows that without action funding available for road and bridge maintenance will fall short of what is needed to remain competitive and most importantly, safe.

Without action, Iowa’s roads and bridges face an uncertain future. Our farmers will find it more difficult to deliver their commodities to market. Business and industry will look elsewhere when considering where to invest and grow. As the study found, sound infrastructure remains a prerequisite for economic development. “

While Democratic Minnesota Mayor Mark Dayton has yet to give his State of the State address, his administration did release the details of his $11 billion transportation funding plan this week. It implements a 6.5 percent gross receipts tax on gasoline, raises the current 1.25 percent base on vehicle registration fees to 1.5 percent, and increases the sales tax by a half cent in the Twin Cities Metro area, specifically for improved transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure.

“Inadequate transportation clogs our lives with worse traffic congestion, longer commutes, more dangerous travel conditions. Those deficiencies restrict our future economic growth and detract from our quality of life,” said Governor Dayton. “If we continue to avoid these problems, they will only get worse. It’s time to begin to solve them.”

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) called for a 10-cent gas tax increase, as long as the legislation included cutting the state’s income tax by 30 percent and restructuring the state’s Department of Transportation.

“Deficient roads and highways are an economic issue. That’s why we supported $1 billion in new road funds last year, which was the biggest infrastructure investment in a generation. It’s why we proposed in our Executive Budget dedicating an additional $61 million in auto sales tax funds entirely to roads. But we know that’s not enough. We still have very substantial revenue needs that need to be addressed.”

Republican South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard outlined his transportation plan that would raise the vehicle excise tax from three to four percent, and increase the motor fuel tax by two cents this year and an additional two cents every year going forward. His plan would also implement a 10 percent increase in vehicle registration fees for local entities. The plan would allow the state to invest $50.5 million more for roads and bridges, with $39.8 million for the state highway fund, and an additional $10.7 million for local towns and cities.

“Our entire economy – our very wellbeing – depends on road infrastructure,” Governor Daugaard said during his State of the State Address. “And right now, our roads are underfunded.”

Addresses from the governors in Georgia, Michigan, and Washington focused on the need to raise revenue because current conditions represent public safety issues — or could soon without adequate investment.

The Republican governor from Georgia, Nathan Deal, has suggested that his state needs an estimated $1 billion to $1.5 billion more to maintain the state’s roads, highways, and bridges — and even millions more to expand. He offered the legislature three options to raise the funding needed to maintain the state’s infrastructure: a regional one percent sales tax designated for infrastructure projects; a plan that will reprioritize funding and focus on the most essential projects; or a “transportation plan that would address the ongoing needs of maintenance and repair, as well as freight corridor and other transportation improvements.”

“We are currently operating at a rate that requires 50 years to resurface every state road in Georgia. If your road is paved when you graduate high school, by the time it is paved again you will be eligible for Social Security.

If we continue to do nothing, we would continue to have to depend on the federal government, whose transportation funds are also dwindling. If we should choose not to maintain and improve our infrastructure, economic development would stall, companies would be unable to conduct their business efficiently, commuters would waste more time and gas sitting in traffic, and no one would be satisfied.”

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed a plan to raise $1.3 billion more a year to mend deteriorating roads and other transportation infrastructure, contingent on Michigan voters increasing the state sales tax to seven percent via a May ballot measure. This bipartisan package of 11 laws would restructure and ultimately raise static per-gallon fuel taxes while exempting fuel from the state’s 6 percent sales tax.

“The key issue is public safety. If you look at it and you look at our bridges, one out of nine is structurally deficient. So, when you drive Michigan and you see plywood underneath the bridge, why is it there? It’s keeping crumbling concrete from falling on your vehicle, that’s unacceptable.

When you talk about our roads and you see those potholes, just think about the issues and concerns you’ve had this personally. When you swerve to miss a pothole, you are a distracted driver. You are putting yourself at risk and other drivers and other people. If you hit that pothole and you blow a tire you’re at risk of a major accident. That is unacceptable.”

Democratic Washington Governor Jay Inslee introduced a cap-and-trade program that would require the largest industrial polluters to pay for every ton of carbon they release, and then direct at least a portion of those funds into transportation. It could raise nearly $1 billion in its first year to pay for transportation projects. California is the only other state to attempt such a funding mechanism.

“Without action, there will be 52 percent cut in the maintenance budget, and 71 bridges will become structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Without action, commute times will continue to rise, robbing us of time with our families. Without action, our ability to move goods efficiently will be diminished.

[This plan] keeps us safe by fixing our bridges, patching our roads, and cleaning out air and water. It also embraces efficiency, saves time and money, and drives results that the public can trust through real reform. Finally, it’s a plan that delivers a transportation system that truly works as a system. A system that transcends our old divides and rivalries. No more east versus west, urban versus rural or roads versus transit.”

Though some plans are certainly better than others, these nine governors are demonstrating true leadership by bucking the conventional wisdom and supporting new revenue to invest in transportation and infrastructure. More could follow in the weeks ahead as a few more State of the State addresses happen and legislative sessions get underway. Transportation for America is pleased to see these leaders take a stand on raising stable transportation funding, and we hope that Congress follows suit to support their efforts by rescuing the nation’s transportation fund from insolvency this spring.

Mayors’ challenge: Help us meet critical transportation needs

Last week, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx issued a public challenge to mayors to “take significant action to improve safety for bicycle riders and pedestrians of all ages and abilities over the next year.” Mayors, in return, have a challenge of their own to the federal government: Don’t leave us in the lurch when it comes to the funding for those – and many other – transportation needs.

As Washington Post writer Niraj Chokshi noted the other day, transportation funding is the most urgent federal “ask” for cities such as Seattle and San Francisco that are facing both aging infrastructure and surging population. Both mayors were in D.C. for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, where federal transportation funding was a key theme.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray

In comments to the Post ahead of a White House meeting, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray framed the situation like this:

Post-World War II, with the suburbanization of America, the federal government stepped in big time and created an interstate system that supported the suburban lifestyle. As we urbanize as a country, we need the federal government to step in big time with transit for our urbanization.

Back home, Murray is one of those mayors who would be inclined to rise to Secretary Foxx’s challenge. But to do so, he is trying to find the resources to overcome the legacy of the last century, when federal dollars helped build high-traffic roads through the city with little provision for people to walk or bike safely. With more and more people living along those corridors, his city – like many others – is trying to squeeze more capacity out of them by making sure people can safely walk, bicycle and take transit.

The mayors said they don’t expect “pork-barrel” handouts. They are prepared to compete for grants based on need, smart planning and a willingness to marshal their own resources. That is one of the reasons why mayors of both small towns and larger cities have come forward to support a plan that would carve out a share of federal dollars in each state for such competitive grants.

As San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee put it:

We’re all focused on infrastructure. We think that that’s probably one of the best foundations for our economy, job creation, and we’re true believers in that.

Tell Congress to send real dollars where the real needs are

Applause rang out from both sides of the aisle during the State of the Union last week when President Obama called for the ambitious, “bipartisan infrastructure plan” we need for a 21st century, “middle-class economy”. It’s time to get real about how we raise that money, and more importantly, how we should invest it.

Photo Credit: The White House

While the President noted that workers are getting a welcome break with lower gas prices, he declined to call for applying some of that savings to making sure those workers can get to their jobs. He again floated the idea of relying instead on a one-time windfall from corporate tax reform, and now some key GOP counterparts seem warm to the idea.

The problem is that no such deal is likely before the transportation program expires and money runs out in May. And even if it were, we need more than a one-shot infusion.

Beyond that, we need a federal transportation bill that actually gets resources to local communities that are struggling to repair and expand transit, roads and bridges so people can get to work and goods can get to market. They need the latitude to fix bottlenecks and potholes and to innovate for the future, in accord with their residents’ priorities.

Tell your representatives: Act now to produce a bipartisan, long-term transportation bill with real money. The time for trial balloons and what-ifs is over.

Please send your representative a message to:

Raise revenue to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund and spur economic growth. For the near term, increasing fuel fees that have lost a third of their value since the last increase in 1993 is the only sure bet.
Ensure funds are flexible enough to spend on all modes of transportation. Let communities invest in whatever way will bring the biggest bang for the buck.
Empower local communities with more control and resources. Local leaders are best able to identify the particular transportation investments to address their communities’ unique challenges.

Your member of Congress has a crucial opportunity to refocus the transportation program in ways that will boost local economies, maintain our existing infrastructure, and prepare for the future.

Send a letter asking your member of Congress to step up.

As a bridge falls in Cincinnati, the future of federal support remains dicey

Is the bridge collapse in Cincinnati a glimpse of our future? You may have heard that on Monday night, an obsolete overpass undergoing demolition “pancaked” onto I-75, killing a worker and nearly crushing a passing tractor-trailer.

The bridge didn’t fall from decay, per se, but the circumstances in many ways are more worrisome even than that rare occurrence. The 1960s Interstate overpasses and exit ramps in the area are being replaced – at huge cost – because they don’t meet current design standards for safety and function.

The aging Hopwell Bridge collapsed Monday night onto I-75 outside of Cincinnati, killing a construction worker and injuring a trucker.

When you hear the President and others talk about the burgeoning bill for “aging infrastructure”, a lot of it comes down to projects like this, aimed at fixing a local street network for the sake of a key economic corridor like I-75. Here we have a perfect nexus of local needs and costs with huge implications for national commerce, the kinds of investment that simply won’t get done without ongoing, consistent federal support.

So how is that support looking after last night’s State of the Union address? On the plus side, President Obama once again emphasized the need for federal investment, not just for near-term jobs but for the long-term health of a modern, “middle class” economy. He rightfully touted that as a place where there should be substantial, bipartisan agreement on a need to act, and pointed to the Administration’s worthy GROW America Act as a good starting point.

And it is another plus that the urgency of addressing a flailing, soon-to-expire transportation program seems to be breaking out of its insider ghetto into general consciousness in Congress. We’ve probably seen more member comments on reauthorization and salvaging the trust fund this month than in the entire year leading up to the expiration of SAFETEA in 2009.

All that said, the conversation continues to occur in the realm of the abstract. President Obama last night again called for investing an expected windfall from corporate tax reform, and at least some GOP Congress members have expressed similar sentiments. But any such deal is a long way from reality, and at least one key player, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT), has said he’s “basically opposed”. And even if that came to pass, it would be a one-shot infusion, not the long-term, sustainable funding source we desperately need.

Meanwhile, the President extolled the big drop in gas prices as a boon to workers, but declined to suggest that maybe a portion of those savings could be applied to making sure those people can get to and from jobs. While Hatch and other senators have expressed openness to increased gas-tax revenues, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, apparently has expressed adamant opposition.

Meanwhile, as the May 31 expiration date approaches along with spring construction season, transportation agencies are holding off on letting projects, and in some cases cancelling them outright.

Last week, the Missouri DOT released this year’s budget, stating they no longer had the money to maintain the 34,000 miles of state roads and bridges, and will instead only maintain the 8,000 miles classified as “primary,” leaving the other 26,000 “supplementary” roads unmaintained. The Tennessee and Arkansas departments have canceled a number of projects out of uncertainty around federal funding, and many others meeting in D.C. last week said they were contemplating similar actions.

No fewer than 16 state legislatures are currently debating funding measures this session, following on the heels of 12 that have acted in the last two years. But those states are trying to make up a shortfall between needs and resources that exists with the expectation of sustained federal support; none of those states have contemplated making up for reduced or absent federal dollars.

Meanwhile, local communities from Cincinnati to Tampa and from Raleigh to Seattle are struggling to deal with those aging infrastructure issues, or to build for a burgeoning population, or both. They need a reliable federal partner more than ever. The conversation in D.C. needs to get real – real quick.

15 issues to watch in ’15, Part II: Places

It’s a challenge to craft a list of only five states, regions and cities that have important or notable things happening this year. Whether states attempting to raise transportation revenue this year, states changing key policies and continuing to innovate how they choose or build transportation projects, or local communities going to voters to raise money for new projects, there’s no shortage of places worth watching this year. Here are five that rose to the top, but tell us what you think we missed, in your area or elsewhere.

Ed: As the year began, we thought it would be fun to identify 15 people, places and trends worth keeping an eye on the next 12 months. We’re rolling out this list in three posts — read our first post on five policy issues worth watching on Capitol Hill in 2015.

Places

1. Minnesota

If we released a list this time last year, Minnesota might have appeared on that one as well. Though a broad coalition (Move MN) formed to rally support from the public and lawmakers for raising transportation revenues, the DFL majority in both chambers did not pass a transportation funding package in 2014. DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, running for reelection, seemed hesitant to support raising any taxes, though he routinely acknowledged that Minnesota needed to invest in their aging transportation network. Late in the election, he introduced his 2015 legislative plan to raise revenue: a new 6.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline, in addition to a variety of other fee increases.

Gov. Dayton won re-election, but the Minnesota House flipped back to a GOP majority, providing a new challenge for his plan in the legislature. Though Move MN built an impressively broad coalition, they weren’t able to secure support from the statewide chamber and a few other key groups that represent Minnesota businesses. Gov. Dayton has already been lobbying those groups in 2015 to support his plan that would raise over $6 billion over the next decade.

Republicans in control of the House have issued their plan that would raise no new taxes but allocate $750 million over the next four years via various internal accounting maneuvers. (Great comparison of the two plans here.) With two legislative chambers split between the parties but a growing public call for something to be done to invest infrastructure, Minnesota will be a critical battleground to watch this year. If Congress fails to find a funding solution to keep the nation’s trust fund from going bankrupt this Spring, Minnesota — and states facing a shortfall — could be hit by a double whammy if they’re not prepared to act on their own.

2. Utah

While there had been some noise over the last year in Utah about the need to raise new transportation revenue, there was no concrete legislation introduced or seriously discussed in 2014. In late 2014, Governor Herbert suggested he was open to raising the gas tax in 2015, which was “a proposition [speaker-elect Greg] Hughes doesn’t see getting very far” in the upcoming legislative session, according to the Deseret News. At the time, Rep. Hughes did suggest that “House Republicans do want to look what he sees as an outdated formula for calculating the state’s 24.5-cent per gallon gas tax.” But just a few weeks ago, news broke that a deal could be closer than previously thought. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune last week broke the news that the state’s GOP caucus endorsed the idea of raising transportation taxes, but also overhauling the funding system — which could mean a revenue source that will rise with inflation.

“We have talked about concepts now for two years,” House Transportation Committee Chairman Johnny Anderson, R-Taylorsville, told a forum of the Utah Highway Users Association. “Know that the work is about to be done” to raise tax for transportation. …Anderson said the House GOP Caucus last month endorsed not only transportation-tax hikes, but also the idea to “dump our antiquated” tax system for one that automatically keeps up with inflation and makes those now escaping gas tax contribute.

The Utah legislature is somewhat unique — their trust of the Utah DOT runs so high that they often appropriate significant general funds to transportation projects. Utah could also prove to be a significant bellwether for other GOP-controlled state legislatures to follow. Utah’s session begins January 28, so we’ll soon find out if this proposition has legs.

3. Illinois

Incoming Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner faces significant challenges, but some of his first moves have a lot of advocates hopeful about positive changes that could come in 2015. Just a few years removed from a governor going to jail and a patronage hiring scandal at state agencies, Illinois is also in one of the worst fiscal messes in the country, brought on by billions in unfunded pensions, decreased tax revenue, and repeated downgrades to the state’s credit rating.

As the Governor and the legislature collaborate on a budget and craft a new capital plan for infrastructure investment, the fiscal crisis facing the state provides an interesting opportunity for Gov. Rauner, who ran as a reformer and a prudent fiscal manager on his business bona fides. With the state billions in debt and confidence in IDOT incredibly low, overhauling the system and moving towards a new system for measuring the performance of the state’s transportation spending could be the only way to restore public trust — essential for raising any new money for transportation.

Possibly hinting at a move in this direction, Gov. Rauner appointed Randy Blankenhorn from the Chicago MPO (CMAP) to head the state DOT, an appointment which could help bring the issue of performance measures into the debate. “There’s always hyperbole and optimism when you have a changing of the guard. But I sincerely believe that we have a chance to right Illinois’ ship with Gov. Rauner and Randy Blankenhorn,” said Peter Skosey with the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and the T4 Advisory Board. As part of his transition team on transportation, Gov. Rauner also brought in MarySue Barrett from MPC, one of the leading advocates in the entire state for a performance-based transportation system.

With these pieces in place, it’s possible that discussing a way to restore credibility and create a new transparent mechanism for distributing any new transportation funds could be central in the debate in Illinois in 2015, which makes this an important state to watch.

4. Indianapolis, Indiana

It was a huge victory when the Indiana legislature and Governor Pence approved a long-sought bill in March 2014 that finally gives metro Indianapolis counties the right to vote on funding a much-expanded public transportation network, with a major emphasis on bus rapid transit. Civic, elected and business leaders had been hard at work since 2009 producing an ambitious and inspiring IndyConnect plan, “the most comprehensive transportation plan — created with the most public input — our region has ever seen,” according to Mayor Greg Ballard in the foreword to our Innovative MPO report. Now the hard part comes as they build public and political will and decide what to include on a November 2016 ballot measure that would raise revenue from changes to local income taxes — a challenging revenue mechanism to say the least.

While transit expansion has more support in the region’s core, local leaders acknowledge they have an uphill battle in some suburban counties more skeptical of the merits of transit. Mayor Ballard and the diverse group of Indy businesses (including a booming healthcare industry) supporting IndyConnect understand how important this measure is for helping Indy be economically competitive in the future. Indy likely won’t be supplanting Chicago as the big city of choice in the Midwest, but there’s a desire among local leaders for Indy to be the city that can attract young families who think Chicago is too expensive; or luring recent college grads back home to Indy. And a strong regional public transit system is lies at the very core of their economic strategy.

Though Indianapolis counties won’t vote on the transportation plan until 2016, some of the most important work will be done in 2015 as they continue their model efforts to build consensus in urban and suburban areas alike on a plan to take to the ballot.

5. Raleigh, North Carolina

After watching the Triangle region’s two other counties approve ballot measure to raise funds for a regional transit system originally envisioned by all three counties, Raleigh could finally be joining the party due to a big shakeup in their county’s Board of Commissioners in 2014.

Durham and Orange counties approved half-cent sales taxes in 2011 and 2012 respectively to fund transit operations, improved bus service and a regional light rail line. Although it contains the biggest city in the region (Raleigh), the Wake County Commissioners hadn’t allowed a question to raise funds for a regional transit system to go to the ballot. In fact, a handful of commissioners actively prevented the issue going forward, often stifling debate at times.

That could all change in 2015, as more than half of the county board was replaced last November. Four new supportive members were elected to the county board, replacing four who had consistently been on the other side of the issue, clearing the way for a potential ballot measure in Wake County. It’s worth noting that the mayor of Raleigh, Nancy McFarlane, has long been a supporter of a regional plan for transit, and she joined with other mayors and T4America a year ago to meet with USDOT Sec. Foxx on the importance of passenger rail.

Wake County is one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. and the county’s population is due to double by 2035. Yet this rapidly growing community with a notable high-tech, research, government and major university employment base is one of the few major metro regions that lacks a significant transit system. Just like Indianapolis, they will be crafting their plan and building consensus in 2015 as they shoot for a vote in 2016. Though the issue has support on the county board now, there will be a public debate and votes worth watching in 2015.

SOTU reaction: To build a 21st-century, ‘middle-class economy’, President and Congress must provide stable transportation funding

For immediate release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In response to President Obama’s call for increased investment in infrastructure Transportation for America Director James Corless issued this statement:

“President Obama tonight explicitly made the connection between his themes of helping the middle class and helping cities, towns and suburbs invest in infrastructure. Communities across the country are struggling in the face of unstable resources to fix and expand roads, bridges and transit systems so that people can get to and keep their jobs and goods can get to market.

The President also made it clear he is aware that time is running out on our transportation trust fund, and that Congress must act soon to renew our commitment to first-world infrastructure. Amid concerns of political stalemate, this is one area where bipartisan action is possible and clearly needed.

We applaud his continued call for smart, new investment, and welcome a significant infusion from the repatriation of corporate profits. However, that is a one-time funding source, and the President missed the chance tonight to embrace a more stable approach such as an overdue increase in gas tax revenues. Nevertheless, we urge him and leaders in Congress to come together on a plan for long-term, stable funding well before the May 31 expiration. We would note that the last increases in the motor fuels tax came with the leadership of presidents Reagan and Clinton, both of whom faced challenges in Congress but managed to find a way forward.

Communities across the country are leading the way with innovative, cost-effective investment strategies, with projects designed to sustain economic growth while improving quality of life. Any economy intended to give more people an avenue to middle-class jobs will have to be built on strong investment in basic infrastructure. The President surely knows it, but now he and his congressional counterparts will need to lead like they know it.”

Contact: David Goldberg
Communications Director
202-412-7930
david.goldberg@t4america.org

Backup contact: Stephen Davis
Deputy Director of Communications
202-955-5543 x242
steve.davis@t4america.org