Skip to main content

Florida’s high-speed rail loss is the Northeast’s gain

Secretary Ray LaHood is in a good mood this morning. The U.S. Department of Transportation has announced the recipients of $2 billion in high-speed rail funds, a total of 22 “carefully selected projects that will create jobs, boost manufacturing and spur development while laying the foundation for future economic competitiveness,” LaHood wrote on his blog.

The lion’s share of the money —$795 million — will be used to upgrade the most heavily-used sections of the bustling Northeast Corridor, increasing speeds from 135 to 160 miles per hour on critical segments, as well as improve on-time performance and add seats, according to USDOT. Amtrak already carries a majority of the traffic between DC and New York and better service will help meet burgeoning demand in that corridor.

“I am thrilled,” the Secretary added. So, too, are the diverse array of recipients. Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, who netted $30 million, called the decision “great news and a win for the state.” California Congressman Dennis Cardoza, whose Central Valley district has weathered double-digit unemployment and some of the nation’s highest foreclosure rates, said the $300 million his state received was a “step forward in connecting our Valley with the opportunities of the future.”

In Michigan, Transportation for America organizer CeCe Grant told the Detroit Free Press that the $200 million in funds to rebuild rail lines between Dearborn and Kalamazoo would result in nearly 70 percent of Michigan residents and 71 percent of the state’s employees within 15-miles of a high-speed rail station.

Other winners, as described by USDOT, included:

  • $25 million to Rhode Island to design and construct an additional 1.5 miles of third track in Kingston, enabling trains operating at speeds up to 150 mph to pass other trains on a high-volume section of the corridor.
  • $58 million to New York to upgrade tracks, stations and signals along the Empire Corridor, including replacing the Schenectady Station and constructing a fourth station track at the Albany-Rensselaer Station.
  • $40 million to Pennsylvania to rebuild an interlocking near Harrisburg on the Keystone Corridor.
  • $186.3 million to Illinois to construct track along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor between Dwight and Joliet to accommodate 110 mph trains.
  • $13.5 million to Missouri to advance design work to replace the Merchant’s Bridge over the Mississippi River along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor.
  • $5 million to Minnesota to complete engineering and environmental work to establish the Northern Lights Express, which would connect Minneapolis and Duluth with 110 mph trains.
  • $15 million to Texas to conduct engineering and environmental work to develop a high-speed rail corridor linking Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston.
  • $4 million to North Carolina to conduct an environmental analysis of the Richmond-Raleigh section of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corirdor.
  • $1.5 million to Oregon to analyze overnight parking tracks for passenger trains on the southern end of the Pacific Northwest corridor, which will add capacity and enable increased passenger- and freight-rail service.

The funds were made available when Florida Governor Rick Scott rejected federal support earlier this year.

“If I sound excited about the prospect of American high-speed rail, it’s because I am,” Secretary LaHood concluded on his blog. “High-speed intercity passenger rail offers real, practical benefits — benefits we cannot afford to ignore.

USDOT has a full list of project recipients here.

Complete Streets bill introduced in House, policies gaining in popularity across the country

Yesterday’s release of the bipartisan Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2011 is an affirmative step toward ensuring the safety and convenience of America’s streets — for everyone.

H.R. 1780, sponsored by Democratic Representative Doris Matsui of California and Republican Representative Steve LaTourette of Ohio, would require state transportation officials to consider the needs of all transportation users — pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and people with disabilities, as well as motorists — in every phase of planning and development.

A complete streets policy at the federal level would help ensure that miserable, dangerous streets like this become history in our communities:

Walking in the ditch
Walking in the Ditch, by Transportation for America

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for a new federal law for states and local communities to start building streets and roads to benefit our communities and make us safer. More than 200 local governments and 23 states are already doing it, leading the way for Congress. The National Complete Streets Coalition penned a report analyzing these policies and identifying best practices, findings you can learn more about here.

The top-rated policies are diverse in geography and size, and include:

  • New Jersey Department of Transportation
  • Louisiana Department of Transportation
  • State of Minnesota
  • State of Connecticut
  • Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (Columbus)
  • Bloomington/Monroe County, IN Metropolitan Planning Organization
  • Hennepin County, Minnesota
  • Lee County, Florida
  • Salt Lake County, Utah
  • Crystal City, Missouri
  • Roanoke, Virginia
  • Missoula, Montana
  • Herculaneum, Missouri
  • New Haven, Connecticut
  • Tacoma, Washington

It shouldn’t be a surprise to see complete streets policies sprouting up in places both urban and rural, red and blue. The Rockefeller Foundation Transportation Survey, conducted at the beginning of 2011, found that “safer streets for our communities and children” was voters’ top infrastructure investment priority. A commanding 40 percent listed safe streets as their first priority, and 57 percent listed it in their top two.

The federal legislation is expected to pick up additional support from both parties in the coming weeks.

The Act is a “marker” bill to be folded into what becomes the comprehensive reauthorization of the nation’s transportation law. But to get that policy folded into the bigger transportation bill, we’ll need to let Congress know that their constituents support it in our cities and communities. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be giving all of you the opportunity to call and write your Representative to urge them to join their colleagues in sponsoring or supporting this bipartisan bill. (Something you can certainly do on your own today!)

Congratulations to our partners at the National Complete Streets Coalition for this terrific news. Their hard work over the last few years has made this possible.

U.S. mayors say no to new revenue for transportation without reform

A supermajority of America’s mayors surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors are clamoring for a reorientation in our nation’s transportation policy toward fixing what we have and investing in new options.

Ninety-eight percent of mayors identified affordable, reliable transit as crucial to their city’s recovery and growth, according to a survey of 176 mayors unveiled this week by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed (right) on behalf of the Conference.

Commanding majorities favor an increase in the federal gasoline tax, but only if more funding is allocated to transit, biking and walking, and local governments are given greater discretion over project selection. Eighty-percent said new highway projects should be a low priority, preferring to focus on repairing and maintaining what we have. Federal financing tools like Build America Bonds or the TIFIA programs receive the support of 75 percent of mayors.

The mayors also agree with T4 America that finding new revenue sources for a larger transportation bill without changing any policies is a non-starter. Just 7 percent of respondents said they would support a gas tax increase without a shift in priorities.

The mayors are in good company — 51 percent of voters in last year’s Smart Growth America poll identified “maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges” as their top priority, compared to 16 percent who chose expanding and building new infrastructure.

While the focus of the mayors’ attention is on the needs of metropolitan areas, most if not all of their policy preferences — increased local decision-making to meet local needs, reforms to the program, a broader array of travel options and a focus on fixing what’s already built — certainly apply equally to rural areas as well.

George J. Pierson, President and CEO of survey sponsor Parsons Brinckerhoff, put the results in perspective, noting that U.S. invests about two percent of GDP in infrastructure, compared to five percent in Europe and nine percent in China. He said:

When mayors in the United States speak to their need to improve the quality of roads and transit systems in their cities, they are responding to a public need in a way that will arm their cities for success in global competition.

You can read more about the survey at Streetsblog or the U.S. Conference of Mayors website.

Photo: U.S. Conference of Mayors

America’s infrastructure woes signal “life in the slow lane”

The dichotomy between anti-spending sentiment — which a majority of Americans identify with on a conceptual if not programmatic level — and the persistence of pressing infrastructure needs that require real money is the theme of a lengthy piece in this week’s print edition of The Economist, a publication known for its fiscally conservative bent.

Perhaps it takes a penny-pinching persuasion from the across the pond to put our infrastructure shortfalls in perspective. The U.S. has considerably larger highways than most of Europe, yet we spend more time in traffic. Domestic engineers give our roads and bridges failing grades, and the World Economic Forum ranks our infrastructure system 23rd worldwide. We spend dramatically less per capita on infrastructure than many developed European countries, and certainly far less than booming China.

The U.S. also lags behind other wealthy nations in passenger rail service, the magazine notes. Even our fastest and most dependable line, the Northeast Corridor’s Acela, “averages a sluggish 70 miles per hour between Washington and Boston,” while the French TGV from Paris to Lyon “runs at an average speed of 140mph.”

“All of this is puzzling,” they opine, noting that the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy, with its richest citizens. Large public works projects are part of our DNA, dating back to our nation’s founding and the continental railroad. The Economist continues:

Between 1956 and 1992 America constructed the interstate system, among the largest public-works projects in history, which criss-crossed the continent with nearly 50,000 miles of motorways.

Furthermore, the Economist argues, our current system for spending transportation dollars “tends not to reward the prudent”:

A state using road-pricing to limit travel and congestion would be punished for its efforts with reduced funding, whereas one that built highways it could not afford to maintain would receive a larger allocation.

By way of solutions, the magazine points out that we will “need to spend a lot more” on infrastructure and identify new revenue sources. A higher gas tax may not be politically viable in today’s climate, but it could be later. Some have also floated a tax on vehicle miles traveled. And, the National Infrastructure Bank supported by President Obama and others offers some promise as well.

At the state and local level transport budgets will remain tight while unemployment is high. With luck, this pressure could spark a wave of innovative planning focused on improving the return on infrastructure spending. The question in Washington, apart from how to escape the city on traffic-choked Friday afternoons, is whether political leaders are capable of building on these ideas.

Today’s Headline – 5/5/11

Illinois will receive $186 million in rail funds — rejected by Florida Governor Rick Scott — for a 110 miles per hour corridor between Chicago and St. Louis. (Tribune)

The Senate will not vote this week on eliminating billions in oil industry tax breaks. (The Hill)

Republicans said they may drop demands to privatize Medicare in an effort to expedite a 2012 budget agreement. (WP)

Ridership on the T system in Boston surged 5 percent. (Globe)

Several Northern Virginia officials approached DC Mayor Vincent Gray about halting underground Metro service to Dulles Airport. (WP)

And, a major West Virginia paper editorialized on the necessity of a new transportation bill. (Bluefield Daily Telegraph)

High gas prices are fueling demand for broader transportation options

The higher gas prices become, the more likely people are to start looking for alternatives. And the shift has already begun.

Demand for mass transit is surging everywhere — from Nashville, Tennessee to Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Terre Haute, Indiana to Pasadena, California. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is encouraging his constituents to bike, walk or carpool at least once every two weeks. And, residents in Peoria and central Illinois started coordinating ridesharing schedules online.

In that same vein, the Las Cruces Sun-News, one of the largest newspapers in New Mexico, encouraged readers to consider new options in an editorial this week, opining:

The economic decision to choose public transportation over one’s personal vehicle could turn into a positive for all concerned.

People who’ve never tried it may actually like it. And if a bus is going where they’re going? Yes, they’ll be more likely to continue using that mode of transportation. It beats paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline, especially when the personal vehicle gets about 15 miles per almost $4.

Gas prices at or above $4 a gallon generate the need for 670 million additional passenger trips on transit systems, resulting in more than 10.8 billion trips per year, according to the American Public Transportation Association.

Bicycling has become a popular alternative, with new riders benefiting from recent investment in bike facilities and programs. Mirroring the increased demand for transit in 2008, biking increased 15 percent nationwide and 23 percent in the 31 largest bike-friendly cities that year, with a similar uptick occurring today, according to Peopleforbikes.org.

Last time gas prices topped $4 and demand for transit surged, cities with well-established public transit systems like New York and Boston saw increases in transit usage of 5 percent of more, while some of the biggest increases in demand came in areas less associated with transit, like the Southwest. But these are many of the same communities that lack the capacity for a large surge in ridership.

Often lost in the discussion is the fact that many people are stuck without realistic alternatives to pain at the pump: streets too dangerous to walk or bike, destinations too far away, no available transit service, no easy options.

Most of the talk in Washington has focused on the supply side of the gas prices equation — speculation, domestic drilling and the like. But a real-world shift in demand is happening right before our eyes. With the nation’s comprehensive surface transportation bill overdue for renewal, this ought to lend greater urgency to the need for robust investment in an array of options to ensure no one gets stranded or left behind.

South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson stresses rural transit needs as gas prices continue to escalate

Gas prices in the U.S. continue to escalate and could hit $4.25 by Memorial Day, according to some projections. These spikes tend to hit smaller communities and rural areas particularly hard, as residents and businesses must travel farther and use more energy during daily activities.

While too much of the talk in Washington emphasizes gimmicks like grand jury investigations and “drill, baby, drill,” some leaders have engaged with constituents on increasing transportation options, one of the most important steps we can take to relieve pain at the pump.

Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota, recently conferred with the Brookings Area Transit Authority, which seeks additional funding and capacity to operate its 21 vehicles. Brookings has a population of 22,000 and is home to South Dakota State University.

Senator Johnson, who is currently serving as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, noted that investment in transit systems is a vital economic development tool for many South Dakota communities. The system in Brookings faces the dual challenge of an aging population demanding more services and rising prices due to the spike in energy costs.

Brenda Schweitzer, the authority director, “noted that rising gas prices have increased BATA fuel bills by $2,000 just within the past month,” according to the Brookings Register. The Register also reported that “the organization’s out-of-pocket match for fuel is at $5,000 per month right now.”

Johnson assured Schweitzer and other participants in a recent panel that he would use his clout in the Senate to push for a transportation bill that meets the needs of South Dakotans and sparse communities across the country.

“With reliable transit systems, we can strengthen our economic development by connecting people to medical services, schools, family and jobs,” Johnson said on his website. “Meeting with people on the ground who deal with rural transit issues every day helps me as I work to ensure that the needs of rural communities are met.”

The Banking Committee has particular jurisdiction over the transit elements of the next bill, which has been overdue for renewal since late 2009.

Photo: Roll Call

New York Times: High-speed rail deserves continued support

Originally uploaded by pgengler to Flickr.

The New York Times resolutely defended high-speed rail in an editorial this morning, characterizing the elimination of remaining funds for the program this fiscal year as “harebrained.”

The budget deal reached by the White House and Congress zeroed-out the $1 billion allocated for high-speed rail in fiscal year 2011 and rescinded an additional $400 million that had been returned by Florida Governor Rick Scott. A previous agreement to keep the government running for an additional week had already included $1.5 billion in cuts.

Governor Scott weathered heavy criticism for rejecting the funds, including from fellow Republicans, and his administration has since acknowledged getting key facts about the project wrong in a presentation to the state Supreme Court.

The Times strongly opposed Scott’s decision, but noted that his action has enabled other interested governors, including 11 Republicans, to put in bids. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has 90 proposals from 24 states to choose from, with a total price tag of $10 billion, and a total of $2.4 billion to distribute. The Times wrote:

Two areas stand out on that list: the Northeast corridor from Boston to Washington; and California, which has ambitions to build a high-speed rail system from San Francisco and Sacramento to San Diego. California voters have approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project (which has an ultimate price tag of some $45 billion), but the state wants the $2 billion for an extension.

While supportive of California’s efforts, the Times would like to see Amtrak’s application for an upgrade to the Northeast corridor’s Acela line receive top priority. Their $1.3 billion request would boost Acela’s speed from 135 miles per hour to 160 miles per hour between Philadelphia and New York City, one of the busiest and most popular stretches in the country. And, New York submitted an application to clear a path for Acela through New York City’s Penn Station, which more than 750 trains pass through daily.

USDOT has not yet announced when recipients will be selected.

Government audit confirms that TIGER, rail grants followed merit-based process, despite GOP complaints

Although a Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Obama administration set and followed a merit based decision-making process for awarding high-speed rail and TIGER grants, several Republican lawmakers claimed the report revealed a lack of transparency and accountability for where the money went.

“Although we can develop cost-effective high-speed rail transportation in this country, I cannot imagine a worse beginning to a U.S. high-speed rail effort,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, the Florida Republican pictured at right, said in a statement earlier this week.

But as Tanya Snyder at Streetsblog Capitol Hill reported, the discrepancies cited by Republicans are largely the result of the two-step awarding process at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The GAO noted that the review team considered a broader range of criteria, including geographic diversity, than the evaluation team, and thus differing results were not unexpected. Snyder wrote:

GAO doesn’t dispute the validity of those decisions but would have liked to see more thorough documentation of why they chose some of the previously lower-ranked projects over higher ones. Draft minutes of meetings shed some light on the decisions but were never published.

Further, the GAO noted that TIGER was a newly-formed program under the Recovery Act and that USDOT “developed a sound set of criteria to evaluate the merits of applications and select grants that would meet the goals of the program.” The GAO went on the write:

By thoroughly documenting how its technical teams considered and applied the criteria, clearly communicating selection criteria to applicants, and publicly disclosing some information on the attributes of the projects that were selected, DOT took important steps to build the framework for future competitive programs and its institutional capacity to administer them.

The GAO also concluded that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which awarded high-speed rail grants “established a fair and objective approach,” but noted that the “exception is what we view as incomplete documentation of why some applications were chosen and not others, and how FRA decided to distribute the funds at the time those decisions were made.” The FRA later clarified and provided details for most of the GAO’s questions.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood strongly defended the decision-making process, saying the GAO report confirms that “we did everything above-board,” and Streetsblog concluded with:

The GAO reports pointed out room for improvement but were overwhelmingly positive about both the TIGER and high-speed rail programs.

A link to both reports can be found on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee website.

Photo courtesy of the Washington Post.

DOT chronicles the inspiring success story of United Streetcar

There’s been a resurgence of streetcars in the United States, with dozens of cities from Washington, D.C. to Tucson, Arizona and Cincinnati, Ohio competing each year for federal dollars to build new streetcar systems to help fill gaps in the existing transit network, bring new development to neglected corridors, and provide another travel option for folks to get from A to B.

Washington, D.C.’s new streetcars were built in Europe, because frankly, most of the expertise on building transit vehicles has been concentrated in countries other than the United States for the last few decades. But now, at least one American company has entered the market and written their own success story.

Streetcars are coming back to the United States in a big way, and United Streetcar, a company based in Portland, is taking advantage by producing Streetcars here in the United States, hiring American workers and boosting the local economy. (Ed note: we profiled United Streetcar in this 2009 post)

It’s a good reminder that our federal transportation priorities and spending have real implications for jobs and the economy here in the U.S. More money for streetcars in the transportation bill not only means better transit options for more people in our cities and communities — it also means more money flowing to companies like United Streetcar; companies that are creating jobs for Oregon residents with trickle-down effects to hundreds of other vendors and suppliers.

More money for transit means more success stories like United Streetcar.

Watch the DOT video below, and read the original post on Secretary LaHood’s blog.

Government shutdown averted in last-minute budget deal, with some cuts to transportation

Down-to-the-wire negotiations late last night between President Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid resulted in a budget deal containing about $38 billion in reductions from current spending levels and the prevention of a government shutdown.

With the Federal Government slated to close at midnight, the House and Senate passed a final one week stop-gap measure to allow the details of the agreement to be ironed out. The continuing resolution itself contains $2 billion in cuts that largely hit the U.S. Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

By next week, Congress is expected to finalize its fiscal year 2011 budget — which runs through September — at the agreed-upon funding levels. President Obama made brief remarks on the budget compromise at the White House shortly after 11pm last night.

The cuts to transportation and housing passed last night were deemed largely non-controversial because they matched closely with the funding levels requested in President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget.

The High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail program will receive $1 billion, a reduction of $1.5 billion from the previous year, and the New Starts program — a key revenue source for transit projects throughout the country — loses $280 million, though the resulting figure is reportedly sufficient to fund projects that have already received grants from USDOT. Other cuts include:

  • $6.3 million from the Transportation Planning, Research, and Development account
  • $2.5 million from the Federal Railroad Administration’s Research and Development; and
  • The Transit Research and University Research Centers Program budget is reduced to $64.2 million.

Details on the remainder of the fiscal year cuts and how they will affect transportation are not yet available, although Politico has early information on a few items:

One of the toughest fights, casting the White House as the budget cutter against reluctant Republicans, was in highway and transportation spending. But here the administration succeeded in cutting about $630 million in so-called orphan earmarks and $2.5 billion in unexpended contract authority.

We expect to hear more about the final package soon.

UPDATE: A White House blog post confirms that the fiscal year 2011 cuts include $630 million in earmarked transportation projects and $2.5 billion in funding that was slated for transportation projects.

Photo courtesy of the Washington Post.

Long Island Bus spared from drastic cuts — for the time being

A month ago, we noted that the Long Island Bus system in New York’s Nassau County was slated to cut service in half without a funding deal between state and local officials. Fortunately for the 33 million annual riders on the LI Bus, the New York State Senate on Friday announced an $8.6 million cash infusion to prevent these cuts.

The consequences of inaction would have been unacceptably draconian. It would have meant the elimination of 25 out of 48 routes, two hundred lay-offs and 16,000 riders left stranded, with 200 disabled riders losing paratransit services. Friday’s announcement, the result of months of negotiations between Nassau County and New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, puts the brakes on the cuts until the end of the year.

The discrepancy in funding arose largely because Nassau County Executive Edward Mangano refused to meet the obligation MTA officials deemed necessary to align with the contributions of neighboring counties. Although Nassau County is very wealthy, Mangano ran and won on an anti-tax platform and has remained steadfast against new revenues.

In an editorial today, the New York Times endorsed the $8.6 billion infusion, while noting that it is limited to the calendar year. The Times also encouraged Nassau to pay its fair share and chastised Mangano’s approach. “Buses limit traffic congestion and keep the economy moving. They are a means of survival for thousands of riders,” the Times wrote, continuing:

Instead of protecting that vital service, Mr. Mangano says a privatized system would run better for significantly less money. That’s ludicrous, as anyone will tell you who remembers the 1970s, when the failures of Nassau’s jumble of badly run private bus lines prompted the state to rescue the system.

The Tr-State Transportation Campaign has more information on the deal, including a statement here.

Newspaper editorial boards urge action on repairing bridges

Pittsburgh Bridge Originally uploaded by mikeyexists to Flickr.

In the days since our comprehensive bridge report (The Fix We’re In For) was released, at least one governor has promised action and several newspaper editorials have urged their states to prioritize repair and address the growing backlog of deficient bridges.

In Pennsylvania, with the worst bridges in the country, there was little surprise that the report would make big headlines. New Governor Tom Corbett told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that his transportation secretary will be creating a task force to look at the issue and come up with funding strategies to repair bridges — even telling the Tribune Review he’d consider selling state-owned liquor stores to pay for it. He’s also pledging to continue an accelerated bridge repair program created under former Governor Ed Rendell that has helped in recent years.

Today, the Post Gazette published an editorial on the issue focusing on what the state can do to help move Pennsylvania down the rankings in the coming years.

As if Gov. Tom Corbett doesn’t have enough financial challenges, last week brought a reminder of another problem that is not going away and will only get worse. According to Transportation for America, a coalition of groups working for national transportation reform, Pennsylvania still leads the nation in structurally deficient highway bridges.

What is depressing about this finding issued last Wednesday is that Gov. Ed Rendell made a priority of fixing bridges. By selling bonds and using federal stimulus funding, the Rendell administration did a lot of good work on bridges, without which the situation would be more dire. But, as this report shows, it’s hard to make up for years of neglect…

…The fact that Pennsylvania remains No. 1 in bad bridges can’t be blamed on Mr. Corbett, but the headlines that would come if a Minneapolis-type bridge disaster happened here would be part of his legacy. This latest report is a reminder that finding creative funding for bridges isn’t just a challenge — it’s a necessity.

As the Post Gazette hints at, states have a lot of power within the federal framework to do a better job with repairing their bridges. As our report notes, states aren’t even required to spend all of their bridge repair money on bridges. But a large part of the solution to this problem will come from Congress and the next multi-year transportation bill. That bill must provide more funding for bridge repair and it should hold states accountable for fixing their bridges with that money.

Until then, states with older infrastructure and a large backlog of deficient bridges, like Pennsylvania, will be fighting this battle at a bit of a disadvantage.

(Ed. note: The Times-Picayune in New Orleans offered a similar editorial)

T4 America co-chair John Robert Smith tells key House subcommittee to repair infrastructure and invest in transit options

T4 America co-chair John Robert Smith encouraged members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to enact “bold new policy” to repair our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, increase transit options and demand accountability for results, in testimony delivered on Capitol Hill today.

Smith, the former 16-year Republican mayor of Meridian, Mississippi and President and CEO of Reconnecting America, was one of 40 transportation experts testifying before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit this week.

Pointing to today’s release of our report assessing the condition of the nation’s bridges, Smith emphasized T4 America’s dual mission of repairing the infrastructure we have while building a transportation system for the 21st century.

He spoke about his own experience leading Meridian and seeing first-hand how improved transportation options improve quality of life in smaller cities and rural areas. “It may come as a surprise to some, but Americans who live in small towns have the same transportation needs as those that live in big cities,” Smith said. “They need access to their jobs, healthcare, education and services. Long commutes, rising gas prices, and shifting demographics all impact the prosperity of these communities and the people that live in them.”

During his tenure as mayor, Smith leveraged a mix of public and private investment to restore Meridian’s historic train station and build the South’s first multimodal transportation center. The station was “a catalyst for transforming our main street, increasing public transportation ridership, and helping to generate millions of dollars in private economic development in the surrounding neighborhoods,” he told the Subcommittee.

“Livability” has become a loaded and sadly partisan term in Congress, but as Smith pointed out, it describes something that really shouldn’t be controversial at all. He said:

When I came to Washington, D.C. almost two years ago, I realized as I heard this new word, livability, that that was just what we were doing in Meridian. The transit connections and ensuing economic development that occurred in my sixteen years as Mayor were empowering people to make decisions without being hindered by distance and gas prices.  You can put whatever label on it you want – but people should be able to live where they want to live, work where they want to work, and get there in a cost-efficient and timely manner.

Congress has the opportunity to heed Mayor Smith’s vision for repair, increased options and higher quality of life as the Subcommittee and full Committee consider a six-year, transportation reauthorization in the coming months.

You can read Mayor Smith’s entire testimony here.

New report highlights mounting challenge of aging bridges

One in 9 rated “structurally deficient” as average age nears 50 years. In state rankings, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Iowa have largest backlog of deficient bridges

WASHINGTON, D.C. – One in nine of the bridges and overpasses American drivers cross each day is rated in poor enough condition that they could become dangerous or be closed without near-term repair, according to a report released today by Transportation for America.

Nearly 70,000 bridges nationwide are rated “structurally deficient” and are in need of substantial repair or replacement, according to federal data. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that the backlog of potentially dangerous bridges would cost $70.9 billion to eliminate, while the federal outlay for bridges amounts to slightly more than $5 billion per year.

The report, The Fix We’re In For: The State of the Nation’s Bridges, ranks states in terms of the overall condition of the state’s bridges, with one being the worst, 51 being the best. Twenty-three states across the country have a higher percentage of deficient bridges than the national average of 11.5 percent.

The five states with the worst bridge conditions have over 20 percent structurally deficient bridges: Pennsylvania has the largest share of deteriorating bridges at 26.5 percent, followed by Oklahoma (22.0%), Iowa (21.7%), Rhode Island (21.6%), and South Dakota (20.3%).

At the other end of the spectrum, five states have less than 5 percent of their bridges rated structurally deficient: Nevada leads the rankings at 2.2 percent, followed by Florida (2.4%), Texas (3.0%), Arizona (3.0%), and Utah (4.5%). The table on the bottom of the main report page shows all 50 states and the District of Columbia ranked by their percentage of structurally deficient bridges, with “1” being the worst conditions and “51” the best.

“Since the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Americans have been acutely aware of the critical need to maintain our bridges,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. That need is growing rapidly, the report authors noted, as the average age of bridges passes 42 years for bridges that mostly were designed to have a 50-year lifespan before reconstruction or replacement.

“As Congress takes up the next six-year transportation bill, it is imperative that we devote a larger share of funding to protecting our bridges” Corless said. “Americans also want to see more accountability for maintaining our infrastructure: 64 percent of voters say that the way government currently spends money on building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure is inefficient and unwise, according to a February poll for the Rockefeller Foundation.”

Hit the jump to see the full state rankings

(more…)

National report and interactive map shows the state of our nation’s bridges

69,223 bridges – representing more than 11 percent of all U.S. highway bridges – are classified as “structurally deficient,” requiring significant maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement, according to a new T4 America report released today, The Fix We’re In: The State of Our Nation’s Bridges.

Those are the facts, and 69,000 bridges sure sounds like a lot, but what does that look like in real terms? Where are these bridges? Does your city or state have a lot of deficient bridges, or does the state do a good job taking care of them? Those questions are going to be much easier to answer with our online tools accompanying the report, launching today at t4america.org/resources/bridges.

We’ve taken the whole federal bridge database and put it online in a map, so you can type your address, and see all the bridges within a ten-mile radius. Structurally deficient bridges will show up as red icons. Click any bridge and you’ll get more information about it, including its rating in a box on the right.

Curious about how your state stacks up? Click on “By State” and click your state to see a quick overview of their performance, including the best and worst five counties, as well as their rank nationally and total percentage of structurally deficient bridges.

The national report and all 51 state reports are being officially released today at noon with a national telebriefing, but you can go ahead and check out the map and data now on our site. (Media members? Contact david.goldberg@t4america.org if you want information on the telebriefing.)

Check out the map today and please spread the word about it. We’ll be posting several times throughout the day with more information about the national report, which is available for download now — as well as reports for all 50 states and D.C.

Share this
on Twitter		            Share Share this
on Facebook

Kerry-Hutchison-Warner infrastructure bank would leverage private investment for revenue-generating projects

This month, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced a variation of the national infrastructure bank touted by President Obama.

The BUILD Act is sponsored by Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee from Massachusetts; Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison; and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner, a former governor with a history of prioritizing transportation infrastructure.

The infrastructure bank would start out with $10 billion, with the goal of generating private investment to match the federal commitment. Leveraging private capital is a recurring theme in discussions about transportation finance and a notable point of agreement between President Obama and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica.

While the plan resembles what the President had proposed, the Kerry-Hutchison-Warner bill would only include loans, not grants. Only revenue-generating projects would be funded, a concession Kerry has said is necessary due to the current political appetite for less domestic spending. The bank would operate independently of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In an enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal, the New York Times editorialized that the bank would allow officials with limited resources to pursue needed repairs.

By providing low-cost capital to states, cities and authorities, the bank would help these strapped governments kick-start projects that are now unaffordable, while attracting investments from pension and private-equity funds that are looking for stable money-generating ventures in which to invest.

The Times also put the proposal into a broader context, citing the very real possibility of future tragedy absent the proper maintenance, and the misplaced priorities of tax cuts over investment.

…already conservatives are railing against what some have called a “boondoggle,” a phrase used to demonize virtually any public investment. What will these opponents tell voters when the dams break and the bridges fall? Before more lives are lost, lawmakers should ask themselves whether they used their public office only to slash spending (and taxes for the wealthy), or to spend money wisely.

A recent Boston Globe op-ed authored by former Massachusetts homeland security adviser Juliette Kayyem also made a strong case for the bank, and Streetsblog covered the bill’s release here.

Photo courtesy of the Center for American Progress.

New report assessing the condition of our nation’s bridges coming Wednesday

A report being released Wednesday by T4 America chronicles the state of our nation’s bridges, with accompanying data and reports for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our country is facing a backlog of deficient bridges that need repairs and maintenance to stay open and safe, with needs far greater than what we’re currently spending.

If you’ve been paying attention to stories about our infrastructure at any time in the last few years, it won’t come as a surprise to you that our transportation infrastructure isn’t in the best shape. Every year, headlines are made when the American Society of Civil Engineers rates our roads or bridges with grades that we’d ground our children for bringing home on their report cards. Most of the year, though, transportation infrastructure isn’t at the forefront of our minds, even though we depend on it every day.

But no event in recent memory jolted us into paying attention quite like the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis three years ago this summer. After that event, there was renewed interest in assessing the condition of our bridges from governors demanding audits down to everyday drivers avoiding deficient bridges. But as the months went by, we went right back to taking these vital pieces of infrastructure for granted. So where do we stand today, almost three years later?

Wednesday’s report will answer questions such as:

  • How many bridges are in urgent need of repairs or maintenance?
  • What states are the best and worst when it comes to the condition of their bridges?
  • What counties in each state are the best and worst?
  • How much money are we spending on repairing our bridges, and is it enough?
  • Are we fixing our existing bridges before we spend money on new roads and highways?

We’ve already released the state-level reports in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and South Dakota. The rest of the states will be released on Wednesday with the national report, as well as a nifty interactive mapping tool that will allow you to find all the bridges near you and see how they rate. Check right here on Wednesday morning first thing for the report and the interactive mapping tools. Follow us on Twitter to get a stream of statistics about bridges throughout the week.

Reporter or media? Email David Goldberg for information about the national telebriefing and report details.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden wants to relaunch popular Build America Bonds program

The Build America Bonds program, a popular infrastructure investment initiative in the 2009 Recovery Act, did not make it into the bipartisan tax deal struck by President Obama and Congressional Republicans late last year. But Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, is now attempting a rebrand and relaunch.

The original Build America Bonds program provided issuers rebates equal to 35 percent of interest costs, and issuers ultimately sold more than $180 billion in BABs since the program debuted in April 2009. The existence of BABs ensured a continuing line of credit for states and cities during a fragile financial market, allowing them to proceed with job-creating infrastructure projects despite the rough climate for borrowing. Lisa Lambert in Reuters reported:

The housing market collapse, financial crisis and recession ravaged (state and local) revenues and forced them to cut spending, hike taxes, turn to the federal government for help and borrow at higher levels to keep their budgets balanced.

Wyden said the bonds under his new program would be called TRIPs, or Transportation and Regional Infrastructure Bonds. The matching rate of 35 percent would likely be lowered, though a set amount has not yet been identified.

John Mica, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, indicated support for including BABs in a new transportation bill, and the Washington Post endorsed an extension of the program last November. Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota has been working with Wyden on the issue.

Representative Sander Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, is pushing similar legislation in the House.

Photo credit: The Oregonian

West Virginia’s Nick Rahall says we have a “great deficit in infrastructure,” warns against deep budget cuts

Saying we have a “great deficit in infrastructure in this country,” the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee warned this week that ill-considered cuts to domestic spending would hinder the economy recovery and put important projects at risk.

Nick Rahall, who represents West Virginia’s Third Congressional District in the state’s southern corner, rebuked the House Republican budget during the groundbreaking for a public water service extension in Mingo County. He called the prevailing budget in the House a “meat-ax approach” and warned that “we have to be careful or we may be doing our economy and doing the recovery more harm than we can ever envision.”

Rahall also put Washington’s spending-reduction mood in context, saying that while some cuts are necessary, eliminating basic services today does nothing to help future generations of West Virginians or any Americans. Taylor Kuykendall of the Beckley Register-Herald quoted the Congressman as saying:

I have long been convinced, and will continue to preach, that the price of doing nothing, the price of letting our water and wastewater services deteriorate, the cost of our highways and bridges crumbling, the debt that grows as our broadband digital divide widens are not ‘financial burdens’ as some see them. To me, they are the very basic things the people elect their government to fix. Put simply, these are investments in our country’s future.

With the fate of the fiscal year 2011 budget — and, with it, millions of cuts to crucial transportation — unresolved and the potential for a new transportation bill later this year, we hope this sort of emphasis on the infrastructure deficit rather than just the fiscal deficit will inform future discussions.

Photo courtesy of Congressman Nick Rahall.