On Monday, CSX, Norfolk Southern, the Alabama State Port Authority, and Amtrak filed a motion to the Surface Transportation Board stating that they’d reached an agreement to restore passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast. In response, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne issued the following statement:
Transportation for America is pleased that the Port of Mobile, CSX, and Norfolk Southern have reached an agreement with Amtrak, clearing the way for Amtrak to restore the long-awaited passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast. This settlement is a tremendous victory for the Gulf, but its impact extends beyond those states. The restoration of this service is pivotal for expanding passenger service across the nation, making good on the promise of the 2021 infrastructure law.
This settlement is a clear indication that we can find mutually-agreeable resolutions that benefit both freight and passenger rail—shippers and the people they serve. We thank the Federal Railroad Administration for making a strong stand to precisely that effect. We also commend the Surface Transportation Board for their leadership in guiding the parties through mediation to reach this agreement.
For freight, this is an opportunity to strengthen their partnerships with elected officials. For Amtrak, it is a call to action for the Board to use their collective authority to further the expansion of passenger rail. Urban and rural communities across the country have been closely monitoring this process, and they can now look at this agreement with hope for the expansion of passenger rail. We stand ready to help them achieve this goal.
In part I of this blog series, we reviewed the evidence on three roadway safety strategies that rely on changing driver behavior—education, enforcement, and technology—to show where they fall short in making America’s roads safer. Design-based solutions, which accept and plan for human mistakes, can avoid the pitfalls of behavioral solutions. A recent report from New York City’s Department of Transportation sheds some light on which of those solutions work best—and for whom.
Streets and roads designed for safety—not speed—are tried and true interventions that reduce injuries and deaths. They require minimal driver education, because self-educating driver cues are built in. They have self-enforcing geometric features that force drivers to obey traffic laws without the threat of police violence. And while technology can be a critical part of safe road design, slower vehicle speeds lessen the need for fast-acting automated systems to avoid crashes.
What does a safely designed street look like? Fundamentally, it is a street with features—like narrower and fewer lanes, extended curbs, and bike lanes—that accept the mistakes made by human drivers and induce slower vehicle speeds to minimize the danger caused by those mistakes. Safe streets better reflect the complexity of a street with many different types of traffic, and are often called Complete Streets. Safe streets are going to look different in every place they’re implemented, since they are necessarily responsive to local contexts. But across the board, safe street design 1) lowers speeds and 2) considers all road users.
Percent change in pedestrian injuries and those killed or seriously injured (KSI). Source: NYC DOT
The results of the report show a massive impact from safe street design. In the above table, KSI stands for pedestrians killed or seriously injured. All the design features significantly reduced pedestrian deaths and injuries, with all but conventional bike lanes reducing pedestrian deaths and serious injuries by over 25 percent. These safety benefits were even more pronounced for senior pedestrians.
Percent change in driver injuries and those killed or seriously injured (KSI). Source: NYC DOT
The safety benefits also extended to motor vehicle occupants, with all the features but turn calming (which was affected by a small sample size) reducing injuries and deaths for motor vehicle occupants at nearly the same rate as pedestrians.
Street design as a core safety strategy
One of T4A’s core principles is to design for safety over speed. Read our full platform.
The cross-user benefits of safe street and road design are not unique to New York City. A review done by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of rural roadways in Warren County, Pennsylvania and Augusta County, Virginia found that self-enforcing, safer street design led to fewer crashes. RAO Community Health, a nonprofit in the highly car-dependent Charlotte, North Carolina, has begun modeling the benefits of safer street design to the city’s most vulnerable communities.
Every year, more states and localities all around the country recognize the safety benefits of Complete Streets, adopting policies to promote their construction. The U.S. Department of Transportation has incorporated the principles of safe street design into their national Safe Systems Approach.
The core of the success behind design is simple: it slows vehicles down. The basic fact of the matter is that vehicle speed and road safety are opposing forces. The higher a drivers’ speed, the greater risk of fatalities. No amount of education, enforcement, or technology can make up for the fact that mistakes are inevitable. Safe street design can ensure that mistakes need not be fatal.
Advocates and governments should leverage the well-documented track record of safe road design in reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities (both domestically and internationally) to push for its adoption in every jurisdiction around the country. The Vision Zero movement has done excellent work in shifting the paradigm toward design. Nearly 40,000 people were killed on our roadways in 2020. If the U.S. wants to cut down this unfathomable number of fatalities, every community will need to rethink its road design standards.
Changes at the federal level could work to support these local efforts. For one, the FHWA needs to incorporate its Safe Systems Approach into its new Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the national standards for roadway design used by every jurisdiction around the country. Better national guidance on safe streets will encourage more localities to act. But it’s worth noting that the MUTCD is not gospel. State and local governments can design roads in any way they want. Advocates should remind their local officials of this fact.
Now you know what works, but how can you communicate the need for design to practitioners? Stay tuned for part III of this series, which will include useful advice on doing just that.
TransportationCamp DC is coming back as a hybrid event on January 7, 2023. This “unconference” is a place where attendees get to set the agenda and lead the conversation. Here are the top 4 pieces of advice for people interested in proposing a session.
Campers propose sessions at TransportationCamp DC
At TransportationCamp, every attendee has the opportunity to propose and lead a session on a topic that matters most to them. But how should you decide, and what makes for an engaging session? Read advice from our team and past session leaders below.
In-person attendees propose sessions the morning of the event. Virtual attendees will propose sessions in December. Have a ton of ideas that you can’t wait to share, or are you just eager to hear what other people come up with? We’ll share session previews from our sponsors before the event to give you a sense of where the conversation can go. Register today so you don’t miss a thing.
1. Start brainstorming now
A lot’s changed since our last Camp, including the challenges our transportation system needs to overcome. Transit agencies continue to recover from pandemic shifts. Federal dollars can boost transportation equity, but there’s even more money available to make equity issues worse. States are tasked with building out their EV infrastructure, and a proposed federal rule would require states to monitor their greenhouse gas emissions created by transportation. Plus, there are new opportunities available to explore the role technology can play in improving our system.
Want to talk about these national trends, but not sure where to start? Last year Anna Zivarts, Director of the Disability Mobility Initiative at Disability Rights Washington, co-led a session called “A Quarter of Us Can’t Drive: How BIPOC & Disabled Nondrivers Will Change Transportation.” Her advice: “It’s always good to ground your discussions in stories from people who are most impacted by the work.”
2. Bring in more viewpoints
“The best panels evidence diverse thought—find people with a different perspective and invite them,” said Steven Polunsky, Senior Energy Policy Specialist in Clean Transportation at the Washington State Department of Commerce, and a session leader for “Electric Vehicles Pros and Cons” at last year’s TransportationCamp.
The early morning at TransportationCamp can feel like pandemonium as Campers share their session ideas and forge connections with others who could help lead the session. Whether you’re joining us in person or online, bring in more perspectives and strengthen your idea by pulling in another Camper to get the conversation rolling. Give folks a head’s up in advance and ask them to join you at TransportationCamp.
Social media can be a useful tool to share ideas and build connections. Join our LinkedIn event and tweet out your plans with #TransportationCampDC.
3. Make it fun!
TransportationCamp is known for out-of-the-box thinking and creative sessions. We’ve seen shark tank-style sessions, mock trials, and even a shared mobility caucus. Sessions often come with memorable names, like “WTF Does That Mean?” (on using plain language in transportation advocacy) and “Cage Fight!” (a debate over whether electrification or modeshift had a better chance of addressing climate change).
Campers participate in a shared mobility caucus.
“TransportationCamp is a great opportunity for the young and young-at-heart to come together, throw ideas on the wall, and see what sticks,” said Benito Pérez, T4A Director of Policy and a former session leader. “In our schools, firms, and other professional areas, we might find ourselves in an echo chamber. TransportationCamp gives us the opportunity to jump out of the box, hear from new perspectives, and maybe walk away with changed minds—or at least new respect and awareness of different points of view.”
Past session leaders also urge future leaders to boost the conversation by being open and considerate to the multitude of perspectives in the room. “Be open to different viewpoints. The key word here is ‘and’ not ‘but,’” said Polunsky. “Remember that some people don’t process groups well. Be gentle when redirection is needed.”
4. Jump in
You don’t have to be an expert to host a session. In fact, some of our best sessions have come from people who have a question to ask. A former TransportationCamp DC organizer, Jenna Fortunati, put it best when she described the power these sessions can hold.
Here’s an example of why TransportationCamp is so special to me: [at TransportationCamp DC 2019], my mom hosted a session. She’s a city council member in my hometown, and was worried (rightly so) that a street widening project in our neighborhood would increase vehicle speeds. She needed advice from Campers on street designs she could propose that would keep speeds low.
And the Campers delivered: a group of about 10 urban planners, engineers, and students brainstormed that the best solution to my mom’s problem was a small roundabout. And that’s exactly what my hometown decided to build when my mom brought the idea back home.
TransportationCamp is the place to air out your concerns, explore new ideas, and share your point of view.
“Don’t be afraid to post a session—you may not be the most expert in the topic but your unique perspective may be the most valuable to potential attendees. Your strength is your experience,” added Polunsky. “Lead with that.”
Excited to attend TransportationCamp? Space is limited, so register today to secure your spot. We’ll see you there!
Billions of dollars in new federal highway funding are flowing into road safety programs, so we wanted to review the research on which interventions can save lives on America’s roads—and which are failing to do so. All the available data tell us one thing clearly: strategies that fail to accept human error and reduce speeds also fail to reduce road casualties.
Much of the research in this post comes from a capstone project on transportation safety and enforcement by Mae Hanzlik, SGA Senior Program Manager of Thriving Communities, completed during her time at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Around 40,000 people died on America’s roadways in 2020. Many state and local departments of transportation, encouraged by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), choose to address this crisis by educating drivers, increasing the enforcement of traffic laws, and promoting automated driving technology. But as Smart Growth America’s Dangerous by Design report notes, year after year, traffic fatalities continue to rise. Each of these approaches has its place, but they all have something in common: they focus on addressing human error, and they fail to acknowledge that mistakes are an inherent element of driving.
This fundamental misunderstanding is fatal, leading to higher speeds and more roadway fatalities, increasingly in recent years. We’ve pulled together all the available data to set the record straight. Strategies that fail to accept human error and reduce speeds also fail to reduce road casualties.
This post is the first installment of a series on road safety programs. For design solutions that can make mistakes less fatal, watch for part II and III.
Education
One of NHTSA and state DOTs’ favorite traffic safety interventions is public awareness and education campaigns like the ones below. These types of slogans can be found plastered across billboards along most state highways and interstates, begging drivers to stop speeding. Advertisements like these are often accompanied by direct outreach through new driver education programs in high schools across the country.
State and federal regulators seem to believe that drawing a public connection between behavior and safety will encourage safer driver behavior. But a sweeping 2008 report from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) found that “information-only programs are unlikely to work, especially when most of the audience already knows what to do.” Drivers know what unsafe behavior looks like, but on roadways that are designed to allow for speeding, doing so is often the most convenient choice.
New driver education programs, despite being much better targeted at the needs of their audiences than general public awareness campaigns, are not much more effective. In a University of North Carolina evaluation of North Carolina’s Kindergarten-9th grade child traffic education program, researchers found that despite a “significant increase in students’ traffic safety knowledge…behavioral observations failed to reflect this increased knowledge.”
Researchers have found the same phenomenon to be true for older teenagers in licensure programs, whose lessons learned in driver education programs have limited impact when they encounter roadway designs that incentivize unsafe driving. This stark difference between what young drivers are taught about driving the speed limit and the reality of roads built for speed creates a dangerous contradiction, which NHTSA itself readily admitted in a review of local programs. Of course, driver education programs are necessary to introduce new drivers to the rules of the road. But leaning on them as catch-all solutions to skyrocketing road fatalities is likely to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.
Public safety awareness and education campaigns, often defended as benign public services, require a lot of cash. They cost federal and state agencies millions of dollars a year, money that could be better spent on evidence-based approaches to road safety.
Enforcement
Law enforcement plays a major role in today’s traffic safety paradigm. Police reports are the basis of most traffic violation data. And though cities like Washington, D.C. are trying to take traffic enforcement out of the hands of police officers by giving it to other agencies or automating it, most areas around the country require all moving violations to be enforced by uniformed, armed police officers.
Police reports are not accurate reflections of the causes of vehicle crashes. By nature, police reports focus on individual behavior, aiming to attribute blame to people involved. They fail to acknowledge the role of road design and vehicle size in crashes. For example, if a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle while crossing the street mid-block because the next crossing is a mile away, the police will often blame the pedestrian for not obeying the law. These faulty data lead policymakers to design solutions that try to correct for individual behavior rather than trying to better understand behavior as a symptom of a larger problem.
Since the invention of the automobile, improved vehicle safety features have saved countless lives. But most of these advancements, like seatbelts, airbags, and frontal and side impact testing have focused on the safety of those inside the vehicle in the event of a crash, doing little to prevent crashes themselves.
With skyrocketing fatalities among vulnerable road users (like pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair users), though, NHTSA and other authorities have championed some new driving systems, namely Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving Systems (ADS), as solutions. ADAS and ADS are technologies that can help drivers detect road obstacles and avoid them before the driver can react themselves. Companies like General Motors have even touted their features as a step toward a “vision of zero crashes.”
But the reality of these systems is a lot more complicated. Most vehicles equipped with ADAS or ADS allow drivers to disable those systems. A study by J.D. Power indicates that many drivers are opting to disable their ADAS or ADS out of annoyance. But even when ADAS or ADS are active, their safety benefits are dubious. These systems routinely fail to detect the presence of children, as well as people of color and those with disabilities. Children, people of color, and people with disabilities are far more likely to be killed as pedestrians, so these advanced driving systems have the potential to deepen the inequities on America’s roads.
Tesla’s ADAS/ADS systems, some of the most popular on the road today, have resulted in hundreds of road fatalities each year. California’s Department of Transportation had to confront Tesla after that company’s ADAS systems, often advertised as fully autonomous vehicles, resulted in several manslaughter charges being filed against drivers that abdicated their driving responsibilities to their “autonomous” systems.
The widely-accepted paradigm of changing driver behavior through education, enforcement, and technology is not making road users safer. So wherever these strategies are currently being implemented, policymakers and regulators should seriously consider whether they are accomplishing desired safety outcomes. Advocates should persistently ask their state and local governments: “Where’s the evidence that you’ve been able to reduce driver error?” Most of the time, the answer will be: “There is none.”
But calls to reduce these ineffective measures are likely to be ignored without alternatives that actually reduce roadway crashes. By accepting the fact that humans will make mistakes, we can plan for those mistakes and make all road users safer by preventing them. Stay tuned for part two and three of this blog series to see how design interventions can get at those solutions, and further advice for advocates who want to push for change.
11/2/22 edit: A previous version of this post erroneously cited a University of North Carolina study as an evaluation from the Transportation Research Board. This post has been updated.
The Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) competitive grant program offers communities funds to apply new technologies to solve their transportation challenges. How smart this program ends up being depends on whether it treats the application of new technology as a tactic, or as a goal in and of itself.
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress authorized $1 billion over five years for the Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) grant program. This program seeks to fund pilot projects where smart technologies and systems are innovatively used to solve transportation problems by guiding applicants through a two-stage process. In the grant’s first stage, selected applicants will receive funds to do planning and build the partnerships necessary to create a “scaled-up demonstration of the concept” with funds from the grant’s second stage.
The SMART grant is another chapter in an age-old story: looking to technology to solve our transportation challenges. However, in the materials introducing the grant, we can see that there are two perspectives to tell this story from: one from the driver’s seat of a personal vehicle, the other from the sidewalk, bike lane, bus stop, and train station. The first perspective can be found in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), and the second in the illustrative use cases listed on the grant’s website.
From the first point of view, the SMART grant will improve transportation by advancing unproven technologies that ignore the root causes of our safety, state of repair, and emissions difficulties. From the second, this grant can use well-tested solutions that complement efforts to redesign streets and invest in modes of transportation besides cars to improve how we all get around.
Eligible projects vs. illustrative use cases
The eligible projects listed in the NOFO center around technological advancements for automobiles. Based on section titles like “Coordinated Automation,” “Connected Vehicles,” and “Smart Technology Traffic Signals,” you might be forgiven for thinking that the only projects DOT would entertain are those that intend to pave the way for fleets of self-driving vehicles. Thankfully, you would be mistaken.
The illustrative use cases harness technology to improve the experience of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. They are broken up by benefits, such as improving safety and reliability, lowering emissions and improving resiliency, and integrating data and sensors into signaling and decision making systems.
On-demand right-of-way conversions could give pedestrians and cyclists more opportunities to safely cross the street. Flickr photo by James Schwartz.
For a safer, more reliable transportation system, USDOT suggests giving transit and emergency vehicles priority signals at traffic lights, automating street sweeping vehicles for sidewalks, and implementing active detection technology for railroad crossings. Technology can reduce emissions and enhance resiliency by making room for modes of travel beyond personal vehicles, through actions like improving last-mile delivery and sidewalk accessibility. USDOT also proposes ways technology can help make streets safer and more accessible for all road users. On-demand right-of-way conversions could give pedestrians and cyclists more opportunities to cross the street, and sensors can monitor the quality of signage and crosswalks to help transportation planners make needed changes.
When combined with possible projects to improve equity and access—such as more efficiently delivering reduced-fare transit to those who qualify and adding automated wheelchair securement systems to transit vehicles—these illustrative cases would increase the reliability, frequency, and accessibility of transit trips. Efforts like these could also improve the safety of everybody walking and rolling, by changing both the physical infrastructure of our streets and sidewalks, as well as the signals that guide how we walk, roll, and drive through them.
What could be
These are also by no means a constrictive list of potential applications. By applying the spirit of the illustrative use cases, the categories of eligible projects have a bounty of opportunities for bettering the everyday experiences of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders.
People walking and rolling to their destinations could especially benefit from what the USDOT calls “Intelligent, Sensor-Based Infrastructure.” By looking at examples from across the country and the world, we can see how this technology can be used to improve the safety of vulnerable users instead of reasserting the dominance of cars. This type of eligible project could include retractable bollards that support shared streets (check out this Streetsblog article for examples of retractable and moveable bollards in New Orleans, LA and Cambridge, England).
That same category of eligible project might also cover speed governors, a technology that has been available for over a century to limit the speed of cars and will soon be mandatory in some way, shape, or form in all vehicles on the road in the European Union. Furthermore, the requirement that vehicles retrofitted as part of the SMART grant be publicly owned or controlled sets up perfectly those who control public fleets to install such technology in their vehicles. New York City is soon to implement this strategy on thousands of non-emergency vehicles under its control. Combined, these applications of the grant would make walking and biking safer through design of both streets themselves and the vehicles on them.
Transit and rail could also see significant benefits from SMART technologies. “Coordinated Automation” could cover the type of fully automated subway systems—both built from scratch and renovated lines over a century old—that are in operation and under construction around the globe. In addition, this automation requires upgrading signals and sensor systems to ensure that individual trains are more closely connected to one another, a potential application of the “Connected Vehicles” and “Intelligent, Sensor-Based Infrastructure” sections. The “Smart Grid” category could apply to the electrification of rail lines, and given that freight trains carry a significant portion of goods in the United States, their electrification would reduce emissions and the length of the supply chain.
The bottom line: It’s not the tech, it’s how we use it
All of these potential applications are no less innovative technologies than the auto-oriented ones described as eligible activities in the NOFO. In fact, their effective implementation in a wide variety of settings might point to them being more groundbreaking. As reflected in the NOFO’s selection criteria, “revolutionizing transportation” is about not just novelty. It is about proof of concept, scalability, and being appropriately aimed at the particular problem. By these measures, adequately-funded incremental solutions like the signal improvements being installed to more than double speeds on parts of New York City’s subway are exactly the kind of projects applicants should be submitting and USDOT should be encouraging. (For the system’s millions of users per day, speeds are more than doubling in some cases, all at a fraction of the cost it would take to do so for any segment of road.)
And yet, the NOFO’s listed eligible activities reflect the last century’s status quo of transportation policy in the United States. Instead of centering communities’ transportation goals and asking what technologies and other policies could help achieve them, these “technological areas” presuppose that hypothetical fleets of connected, autonomous, battery-electric cars will solve all potential problems.
The effectiveness of the SMART grant will depend on whether or not DOT continues to view cars as the unimpeachable mobility solution without actually asking what problem it is trying to solve. Per the eligible activities listed in the grant’s NOFO, DOT is still not asking this question. But based on the illustrative use cases, DOT knows that achieving tangible benefits from the SMART program won’t come from trying to move more personal vehicles, but using technology to improve the mobility of all road users, especially people outside of a car.
Because this is the first year that the grant is being administered, and USDOT will require Stage 2 applicants to be recipients of Stage 1 grants, only Stage 1 grants will be accepted this year. Applications for these planning, prototyping, and partnership-building grants are due by 5 p.m. on November 18, 2022. Their tentative maximum size is $2,000,000, depending on the number and quality of applications submitted, with up to $100,000,000 and no less than $98,000,000 available to distribute.
Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.
As the Biden administration invests in transportation electrification, the Twin Cities’ electric carshare program serves as a model for supporting the electric vehicle transition in a way that delivers affordable access to EVs for more people.
With continued federal incentives for electric vehicles and funding to build out the charger network, you would think this would be the perfect time to buy an electric car. However, pandemic-related supply chain challenges and inflation have driven the cost of new and used cars higher than ever. For many people, especially those in communities that have already historically experienced disinvestment, this presents yet another barrier to benefiting from federal investment in electric transportation.
The Twin Cities have found a way around this problem. It’s called Evie Carshare.
Evie is a point-to-point carshare program in Minneapolis and Saint Paul powered by renewable electricity. It’s a public-private partnership between the two cities, HOURCAR, Xcel Energy, East Metro Strong, and the American Lung Association. Evie currently has a fleet of 101 electric vehicles and a network of 71 charging stations and is still growing. It launched in February before funding started flowing from the 2021 infrastructure law.
The Evie Carshare program kills way more than two birds with one stone. Unlike programs that just invest in charging infrastructure or EV purchase incentives, this program addresses some of the fundamental challenges with the transition to electric vehicles:
Affordability. For people who cannot afford a car, Evie Carshare provides access to a car for those trips that really require one, even if most of the time you get around by transit, walking or biking. That not only benefits folks who cannot afford a car, but provides an option that could make it easier for a household to go car-free or cut down on the number of cars, freeing up income for other things.
The program just released a six-month report showing strong usage as the system grows. In its first six months, Evie Carshare has supported over 24 thousand trips, saving an estimated $2.5 million for users. It’s estimated that 33 percent of those savings were attributable to very low income households.
“At a time of high car and gas prices, people need options. This strong usage shows Evie Carshare is meeting a need,” said Will Schroeer, executive director of the public-private partnership East Metro Strong, a T4America member.
Supporting other modes of travel. We know that electrifying transportation is essential but insufficient to meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets. Transportation options that reduce the need to drive help us get there and also deliver equity, health, and economic benefits. On a macro-level, carshare can support vibrant, walkable cities. Studies estimate that a shared car replaces 5 to 15 personally owned vehicles. That means fewer parking lots and fewer cars on the road, leaving more space for homes, parks, and infrastructure for walking, biking, and transit. According to the six-month report, Evie Carshare has already cut an estimated 741 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
Staying charged. Evie Carshare is a hybrid station-based free-floating service with charging stations located across the service area. Carshare users can start and end a trip anywhere in the 35-square mile service area; plugging the car in at a charging station at the end of your trip earns you credit. Each charging location has spots for carshare vehicles and public charging as well.
The public chargers in the network create yet another benefit: public charging access close to apartment buildings where EV owners may lack access to at-home charging. That’s likely to make EV ownership more feasible for more otherwise gasoline-fueled car drivers, particularly those on more modest incomes. Charging logistics are cited as a key barrier for people not yet committed to purchasing an EV.
As the Biden administration’s Joint Office on Energy and Transportation rolls out $2.5 billion in community charging grants over the next five years, Evie stands out as a model for investing in a ways that can accelerate the EV transition and support the administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which aims to direct 40 percent of the benefits of federal clean energy investments to disadvantaged communities.
If you live in the Twin Cities and you are thinking of buying an EV for your next car, Evie provides an opportunity to try them out and see how you like them. Surveys show that the more experience someone has with EVs, the more likely they are to choose an EV for their next vehicle purchase. Encouraging people to switch over to EVs is great. But with a carshare program and quality transit, biking, and walking options, many Evie users may learn they don’t need to purchase a car after all, which is even better.
10/14 Update: Comments are now closed. More than 60,000 comments on a new rule to measure greenhouse gases from transportation were submitted to USDOT during a comment period that closed on 10/13. Comments in favor outweighed those opposed by more than 3,000 to 1.If the Biden administration moves forward, this new rule could reestablish sunlight and accountability for transportation’s impact on climate change. Here’s what’s next for the proposed measure.
Note 10/24: The FHWA’s final count of comments and submissions is 62,319, but some submissions included more than one comment, which means the actual number of comments is likely higher. A coalition of advocates determined that over 100,000 comments were submitted in favor of the rule.
States were recently granted a historic amount of federal transportation funds, which provides a great deal of flexibility in how states can use their funds. Even though transportation is the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, states currently have no requirement to track their projects’ impacts on transportation climate emissions. The proposed GHG emissions measure would reestablish this requirement, previously rolled back under the Trump administration, and help states and MPOs take climate concerns into account in their spending decisions.
Black and brown communities are disproportionately impacted by climate change, and the Biden administration set a goal to advance environmental justice. Justice40 aims to deliver 40 percent of the benefits of federal climate and clean energy investments to communities of color. (For more information about Justice40, read our past blog post.) However, without any sort of tracking in place at the state level for GHG emissions, any Justice40 benefits for marginalized communities could be dwarfed by the consequences of unchecked emissions levels rising overall.
So far, the rule is experiencing a wave of support from advocates, organizations, concerned citizens, and even state DOTs.
However, once comments close, the Biden administration will have to decide what happens next.
Many states are willing and prepared to take on the urgency of the moment. We wrote last month that 24 states and the District of Columbia already have emissions tracking rules in place, some that are more aggressive than what the federal government is proposing. In addition, the FHWA can and should commit to providing tools and best practices to states and MPOs to help them meet their GHG reduction targets. The USDOT can also shed more light on state emissions by providing accessible, user-friendly data for state and regional policymakers, whose job is to ensure that state transportation decisions align with voters’ priorities.
Urgency is needed. The reestablishment of this commonsense measure was one of the first actions we called on the Biden administration to take when they took office. It has been a long time coming, and we are pleased to see an end in sight. Now the administration must be careful not to delay the rule further. The federal funds granted under the 2021 infrastructure law have already started flowing into states’ hands, and shovels are hitting the ground. States are currently making decisions about long-term transportation projects that could make emissions worse. To set them up for success, the administration should finalize the rule quickly and require states’ GHG targets be set within 6 months of the final rule. Failure to act will only move the administration further from its goals and our country further from reducing transportation impacts on climate change.
The 99% Invisible podcast discussed the Netflix show Old Enough, where Japanese children run their first errands, explaining how street design lets the show’s participants be both safe and independent from a young age. We explore the flip side of this coin in the United States, where convenience for cars becomes a major inconvenience for anybody who can’t drive one.
For most of my childhood, I lived along a minor arterial road, right next to the outer loop of the Beltway in Washington, D.C.’s suburbs. Although the speed limit was, and still is, technically 35 mph, the road was wide and unobstructed enough that drivers routinely felt comfortable driving 50 mph, and so they frequently did. Combined with the lack of any shoulder, much less a sidewalk, this meant that the only way for me to access the outside world was through the back of my parent’s station wagon. To go to school, get to soccer practice, have a playdate with a friend, or pick up the jacket I frequently forgot at any of the above locations, one of my parents had to stop whatever they were doing to drive me there and back. When they weren’t available to drive me, I was stuck.
That’s why a recent episode of the 99% Invisible podcast hit so close to home. In the podcast episode, host Roman Mars and reporter Henry Grabar discuss the recently-popularized Netflix show Old Enough—in which elementary school-aged Japanese children run their first errands—and why the children on the show as young as two-and-a-half have so much more independence than their American counterparts.
Despite a shopkeeper helping kids get products from shelves they can’t reach and the existence of social routines like the walking school bus, the real difference-maker is the built environment—the design of the sidewalks and streets, and the layout and shape of the buildings and how they relate to the streets and public spaces—and the kind of lifestyle that these choices make possible. Whereas my elementary school, friends’ houses, and nearest grocery stores were miles away, those destinations are a short walk away for most Japanese children. Whereas all of my destinations were only connected by wide arterial roads filled by people driving at high speeds, the tiny, young participants in Old Enough navigate pedestrian-friendly neighborhood streets. And whereas my life to this day involves looking around parked cars to check for oncoming traffic, this show makes clear that in Japan these obstacles are less frequent. It turns out that everything which allowed my parents to drive me everywhere—high speed roads connecting all of our destinations and ample parking when we got there—is exactly what made it impossible for me to safely get anywhere without them.
This is because safety and speed are irreconcilable when cars and more vulnerable road users (like cyclists and pedestrians) are involved. The elements that make it easier to drive at a high speed—many wide lanes, fewer conflict points, sweeping corners, and less road furniture—simultaneously make walking more dangerous. These design choices present pedestrians with lengthened crossing distances, a reduced number of places to cross, and an experience that’s simply uncomfortable as cars zip by at high speed. That discomfort isn’t unfounded either; should a driver hit a pedestrian, the chance of that person dying increases exponentially with the faster the vehicle is going. As any kid, but especially one who’s just dodged a speeding car on the way to school, can tell you, road design is pretty elementary.
This means that the cost of this tradeoff—safety for speed, vehicular convenience for pedestrian exclusion—is not simply the lack of U.S.-based Netflix shows where five-year-olds go to grocery stores. Pedestrian fatalities have ballooned more than 50 percent over the last decade—in direct contrast to trends in nations like Japan, where they’ve decreased more than 40 percent—with the more than 75 percent increase in these traffic fatalities since 2009 disproportionately impacting Black and Native Americans. Furthermore, this bloodshed is highly concentrated; urban arterials make up just 15 percent of the road network, but are the site of nearly 70 percent of deaths from traffic violence. This makes it clear that an American version of Old Enough doesn’t exist not just because of parenting choices, as some commentary focused on, but because there’s really no age where our communities are safe enough for pedestrians.
Recognizing that design is a leading contributor to traffic deaths gives us the opportunity to reduce the level of danger on our streets. We have simple yet effective tools to make everybody beyond the four doors of a car safer. These include:
narrowing vehicle lanes and turning radii to slow down drivers;
banning parking near intersections (at least) to improve visibility for all;
bumping out intersections and placing pedestrian islands in crosswalks so that crossing distances are shorter;
building a network of separated and protected bike lanes so that people on bikes aren’t mixed with those driving vehicles weighing multiple tons;
and even just ensuring sidewalks exist and are well-maintained, so that pedestrians have safe places to walk.
Making these improvements wouldn’t only mean allowing more three-year-olds to take trips to the grocery store. The design of our built environment currently limits everyone’s mobility, especially those who can’t or don’t drive, such as the elderly, visually and physically impaired, economically disadvantaged, and survivors of car crashes. Loved ones, grocery stores, social services, and economic advancement should be just as attainable without a car as they are with a car. By making our roads and streets safer for vulnerable road users—as opposed to relegating pedestrians and cyclists to solely recreational paths and trails—all of the people mentioned above are significantly freer to participate in society. Street design is more than the top vehicle speed for a given corridor; it’s a reflection of who and what activity our society prioritizes.
When I was in middle school, my family moved to a house where I could safely use my bike as transportation, at least to some of the places I wanted to go. Grocery stores and my middle school were still too far to reach, but I was suddenly able to visit friends, go to tennis courts near my house, and just ride my bike for fun. The millions of people across the country who can’t drive (or simply choose not to) can and should experience that same transformation.
TransportationCamp DC is an annual opportunity to connect with experts, practitioners, and students all at once. It’s coming back on Saturday, January 7, 2023 at George Mason University’s Arlington campus. Here are the top five things you need to know about the popular “unconference.”
1. We’re hybrid this year
We want to reach as many people as possible, so in addition to the in-person event at Van Metre Hall, we’ll also have a virtual option over Zoom.
2. Attendees choose the topics—and lead the conversation
TransportationCamp is a place for all “transportation nerds” to set the agenda and lead the conversation. After the keynote, the full-day event is broken up into hour-long breakout sessions. In-person Campers propose discussion topics on the morning of the event, and if their topic gets picked, they get to lead a one-hour discussion.
3. Virtual attendees propose virtual-only session topics in advance
Virtual attendees gain access to the welcome, keynote address, hybrid sessions, and virtual-only sessions that they lead themselves. Unlike in-person attendees, virtual Campers will propose their session topics in December. Register by December 1 to make sure you don’t miss your chance to submit!
4. You can get to TransportationCamp by bus, car, metro, or bike
Van Metre Hall on George Mason University’s Arlington campus is located on the orange and silver metro lines, right between the Virginia Square—GMU and Clarendon stops. A Capital Bikeshare docking station is located near the entrance on Fairfax Drive. If you’re driving, you can find parking in the garage under Van Metre Hall. Easily route to the entrance of the garage by plugging “Founders Way North, Arlington, VA” into your GPS.
5. Registration is open now, and spots are limited
This unconference is always full of new things to learn —and tons of fun. Register today to secure your seat at TransportationCamp DC, and let others know you’ll be there! Tweet with our hashtag and join our LinkedIn event.
Here’s a quick look at what folks had to say about last year’s event:
Congrats to @T4America @ @SmartGrowthUSA for making an ALL-day Zoom event on transportation👉#TransportationCampDC FUN. Want to make an impact to increase safety on our roads? Join the events. Don’t be afraid, they don’t bite. The industry wants to be our friend & build better👏 pic.twitter.com/GRqWvS3UvM
The pedestrian bridge in Greenville’s Falls Park on the Reedy that replaced a highway, spurring over $100 million in private investment in its first two years. Photo by James Willamor on Flickr’s Creative Commons.
How do I get a Reconnecting Communities Program (RCP) project started? Do I have to convince my state DOT to support the project?
Cities willing to sponsor projects to remove, retrofit, mitigate, or replace an existing locally owned road can do so without state DOT support. While helpful, state cooperation is not needed to get an RCP project off the ground.
Is there a maximum grant size?
For Planning Grants, the maximum grant award is $2 million. For Capital Projects, the minimum grant award is $5 million but can be as large at $100 million. Funding may not be enough to complete larger projects so applicants who demonstrate funding capabilities outside of the RCP will receive priority funding.
Is there an opportunity for private capital investments to contribute to local matches?
RCP is a great opportunity to engage local business groups and nonprofits to contribute to local project costs and non-federal matches. Local businesses have a vested interest in reconnecting communities to shops, restaurants, and other goods and services. It is important to engage all funders, including USDOT, through the entire lifecycle of RCP projects.
Does an RCP project require an environmental impact study?
For most projects, a general environmental impact statement (EIS) is sufficient. The Notice of Funding Opportunity also suggests completing an EPA Environmental Justice Screen or similar reports to ensure equity and environmental justice concerns are given proper consideration and can be addressed.
Is the RCP the same as the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program (NAEP)?
The RCP and the Neighborhood Access and Equity Program (NAEP) are two different but complementary programs. RCP is a pilot program within the infrastructure law while the NAEP is a separate program within the Inflation Reduction Act that is permanently enshrined in US law (23 USC 177). These programs may be used to bolster one another as the NAEP can be used for a wider range of projects aimed at connected, thriving communities than the RCP. You can read more about the NAEP in our blog about the Inflation Reduction Act.
How can RCP projects address racial equity in order to avoid past mistakes?
Projects should partake in a context-sensitive approach that acknowledges past racial inequities resulting from road projects that divided and bulldozed communities of color. Local leaders can do this by following the lead of community advocates that have been pushing for better connections for decades. RCP projects should engage community stakeholders early and often throughout the process.
Have more questions?
Let us know! Reach out to benito.perez@t4america.org for more information about the Reconnecting Communities Program. Remember, the deadline to apply for the first round of funding is October 13th, 2022!
Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released a notice of funding opportunity for the All Stations Accessibility Program (ASAP) that allocates $343 million in fiscal year 2022 (FY22). This program offers competitive grants to localities for the upgrading of legacy stations so they meet the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.
Why do we need the All Stations Accessibility Program?
The transportation sector is a leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions nationwide, and the majority of its contributions comes from driving in private vehicles. As we wrote in our report Driving Down Emissions, in order to reduce transportation emissions, we need to give people the option to travel outside of a car.
One such option is transit—like buses, subways, and commuter rail—but many barriers prevent people from replacing their daily car trips with transit trips. (Read our blog series for more information on the impact increased transit access and funding can have on car trips.) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 required transit stations to address one of these barriers: equitable access for people with disabilities.
Equitable access is pivotal for allowing people with disabilities to utilize other forms of travel outside of car travel. Walking and rolling to destinations presents its own challenges, because the majority of U.S. cities aren’t designed for walking and rolling. Destinations are spread out, and even nearby destinations might be on the other side of a wide, dangerous arterial road. In addition, many sidewalks aren’t accessible for people who use mobility aids, either due to obstructions like snow (and even EV-charging extension cords), poor maintenance, or inaccessible entrances and exits at intersections. For the 40 percent of people with disabilities who cannot drive, transit access can be an essential resource for daily trips.
However, even in cities with readily available transit networks, like New York City, people with disabilities do not have the access they need. That’s because, more than 30 years after the ADA was enacted, many legacy stations (public transit stations built before 1992 or commuter rail stations built before 1991) haven’t been updated to meet equitable accessibility standards.
Many legacy stations were built without consideration or guidance on designs that adequately served riders with disabilities. Once the ADA was passed, the law required that any capital improvements made to public transportation or commuter rail stations must satisfy requirements of the ADA. However, ADA compliance presented an additional cost to transit agencies, so rather than install the capital improvements their riders needed, they avoided making these necessary changes to their stations. As a result, many legacy stations not only remain inaccessible—they’ve entered a state of disrepair.
The lack of available options can pose major issues in the lives of people with disabilities. Limited transit access can mean that one small change—like the only elevator at the nearest accessible transit station being out of service—can create hours of delays as a wheelchair-bound rider waits for paratransit, attempts to hail an accessible cab, or chooses a less direct transit route that requires multiple connections. Such delays can make all the difference in whether riders reach essential services, like healthcare appointments or job interviews, or miss their window. And in the case of natural disasters like hurricanes and floods, these delays can make it impossible for people with disabilities to safely evacuate using transit. As Jean Ryan of Disabled in Action put it, “access delayed is access denied.”
Reliable, accessible transit is an important resource for people with disabilities to reach their daily needs. Considering that a quarter of the American population is disabled, improved access for all travelers is also central to getting more people on the bus, subway, and train—boosting transit revenues and lowering transportation emissions. ASAP gives localities the funding they need to upgrade legacy stations so that transit stations can make good on the long overdue promise of the ADA and better serve all riders.
Has your transit agency applied for an ASAP grant?
ASAP grants can cover up to 80 percent of the total cost of the proposed project. Localities must fund the remaining 20 percent of the total cost but localities can derive this funding from a variety of sources. The FTA has not released a maximum funding cap, but maintains the authority to cap funding during the selection process.
Localities can apply for two funding options: capital projects or planning projects. Capital projects include repairing, improving, modifying or retrofitting legacy stations while planning projects include developing or modifying ongoing projects to comply with ADA standards. If localities want to apply for both capital project funding and planning project funding they should submit separate applications for each project.
After the application process, FTA will assess applications based on criteria that consider the need for improvement, the benefits from the proposed project, coordination with stakeholders, local financial commitment, implementation strategy, and applicant capacity. The FTA will review this criteria as well as prioritize projects that address racial equity and barriers to opportunity.
Operators of legacy stations have the responsibility to create an equitable riding experience, and now the ASAP can empower these entities to meet their ADA obligations and adequately serve all riders. To encourage transit ridership, agencies need to provide riders with reliable, accessible service—applying for ASAP grants will help them do just that.
Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.
Amtrak has a workforce crisis on its hands. While the COVID-19 pandemic brought many of these problems to light, it did not create them. Mistakes by Amtrak’s leadership long before COVID-19 led to a slowly diminishing workforce and service impacts, which the pandemic exacerbated. Now, with a historic federal investment in passenger rail, how can Amtrak pivot and get back on the right track? The answer may lie in the company’s recent history.
John Robert Smith is Chair of T4America and policy advisor for Smart Growth America. He served for 16 years as mayor of Meridian, MS, whose Union Station, his signature project, is recognized as one of the best multi-modal transportation centers in the country. He then served on the Amtrak Board of Directors, where he shepherded the company through Congressional defunding, the launch of Acela, and the restoration of 7 day/week national service. At T4A, he now advocates for more equitable and regionally diverse expansion of national passenger rail service.
The history: Amtrak in crisis
In 1995, federal budget cuts slashed Amtrak’s budget to $750 million, a six-year low. Amtrak, facing Congressional pressure to reduce its expenses but wishing to preserve full Northeast Corridor service, suspended service from seven days per week to three days per week along much of the national network.
For John Robert Smith, then mayor of Meridian, Mississippi, that was an unworkable plan. He was overseeing the construction of the South’s first multimodal transportation center, with the city’s Union Station at its center. He knew, having planned for seven day/week rail service through his city, that cutting service to less than half would be an inefficient use of Amtrak’s resources, which would sit idle when not in service, still incurring fixed expenses. He watched Amtrak cut its workforce and service nationwide and feared this would cause long-term losses in ridership and not result in the cost savings Amtrak thought it would.
His fears came to pass. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that “during fiscal year 1996, Amtrak’s overall ridership dropped by 1.1 million passengers, or 5 percent, and anticipated reductions in operating costs were not realized on routes with reduced frequency of service.” Testifying before Congress in 2000, Amtrak President George Warrington admitted that “all of those eliminations back in 1995 and 1996 ended up costing the company more in lost revenue than we were able to take out in the way of expenses, given the fixed-cost nature of the operation.”
The change: Better trains, regardless of funding
Recognized by Congress for his successes in building the South’s first multimodal transportation center, Smith was appointed to the Amtrak Board of Directors in 1998. This meant he was thrust into the center of the effort to recover from the disastrous decisions made by Amtrak in 1995. He knew that three day per week service would result in inefficient use of staff and equipment. So he built relationships with both sides of the aisle in Congress, convincing Senate leaders to restore Amtrak’s national seven day per week service to much of the national network. For example, opposition to Amtrak funding had mostly come from Republicans, so Smith spoke with his senator, Trent Lott (R-MS), about the economic benefits of passenger rail for Mississippi, turning Lott into an ally within the party.
But Smith learned from very early on that Amtrak could not rely on steady funding to provide high-quality service. In 2000, Congress defunded Amtrak yet again, this time right before it launched the new high-speed Acela service (to much fanfare). While they did not have the money to boost the service as much as they would like, Amtrak was nonetheless dedicated to running high-quality trains. The Board personally ensured that on-board service on Acela trains would meet customer needs. They persistently marketed Acela as faster than air travel, even issuing a challenge for two reporters to race from the Washington, DC city center to Boston’s city center, one by airplane and one by Acela. The reporter on Acela arrived in Boston first. With airports located far from city centers and delays from air traffic control, weather, and security screenings, air travel was slower than Acela.
When Smith became Chairman of the Amtrak Board in 2002, the company had yet to fully recover from the previous decade’s workforce cuts despite eventually restoring Congressional funding. But Amtrak’s new president, David Gunn, was committed to building a stronger workforce from the ground up. Gunn visited railyards at 4:30 every morning to talk with the crews. He was committed to riding Amtrak to attend meetings so he could witness first hand the problems facing on-board crews. Morale among Amtrak’s labor force was high. Some employees printed t-shirts that read “Proud to Be Working Under the Gunn.”
Year to year, Amtrak’s ridership does not have a strong impact on its revenue. (Source: 2017 CRS report)
Due to the lapses in funding, Smith and Gunn often had to confront the possibility of bankruptcy. During the worst of their fiscal crisis, in the summer of 2002, they worked with the Bush Administration to secure an emergency $100 million loan to keep the company afloat. The loan conditions were hard, but the money kept Amtrak running and was critical to the rebuilding effort.
Despite stagnant federal support, high morale among workers translated to high-quality service. By 2007, Amtrak’s ridership reached a 15-year high. Despite some pressure to invest only in the “profitable” Northeast Corridor, Smith and the rest of the Board knew better. They had ridden the trains with their long-distance customers, who they knew would be loyal to Amtrak if Amtrak took care of them. Their success, on top of the honest relationships with Congressional staff built by Amtrak’s director of Government Affairs Joe McHugh, created trust in the halls of Congress. Smith, Gunn, and McHugh were able to convince senators like Lott, Frank Lautenburg (D-NJ), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who had little else in common, to serve as Congressional champions for Amtrak service through each others’ states. Smith, Gunn, and McHugh also developed relationships with Senate Appropriations leaders Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) to ensure stable federal funding for years to come.
Throughout his tenure on the Amtrak Board of Directors, John Robert Smith believed in long distance service and its ability to support the rest of the organization. Smith’s trust in the loyalty of long distance customers was later vindicated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Amtrak was kept afloat largely by its long-distance customers outside the Northeast Corridor. As ridership continued to be depressed on the Northeast Corridor and state supported lines in April 2020, ticket revenues from long-distance trains rebounded much quicker, jumping 71 percent, from $6.8 million to $11.6 million.
Today: History repeats itself
The progress made by Amtrak leaders like Smith and Gunn is threatened by an Amtrak leadership that is repeating the mistakes the company made in the 1990s by once again furloughing much of its workforce and defunding its long-distance network.
Graphic detailing long distance service, from Amtrak’s FY 2021 Company Profile, showing the positive effect long distance service has on the company’s revenue.
When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States in 2020, Amtrak leadership decided to furlough 11 percent of its workforce, with another 20 percent reduction in 2021. These reductions mostly affected the company’s loyal long distance customers despite overwhelming evidence that these types of actions do not reduce long-term expenses and can indeed make service recovery much more difficult. Now crews are demoralized, evidenced by Amtrak’s struggle to attract furloughed employees back to their jobs. Remaining staff are overworked, threatening safety and customer care.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act authorized a record $2.2 billion in annual funding for the national network, twice that of the Northeast Corridor. But as Amtrak proved in the late 1990s and early 2000s, funding does not guarantee high-quality service. And Amtrak is going in the wrong direction. Facing a drop in revenue due to the coronavirus Omicron variant in early 2022, Amtrak once again slashed long-distance service, hurting its most loyal customers. Many long distance routes have yet to recover.
John Robert Smith’s simple message for today’s Amtrak leadership
“Ride the trains unannounced and individually. See the same service your customer does. Ride lines other than the Northeast Corridor, and more than once. Leaders like myself and David Gunn knew what the company’s workforce and riders needed to thrive because we used the service we were providing nationwide. We moved our monthly board meetings out of Washington two or three times per year and traveled there on our trains.
Talk to the crews. Ask what they need. Ask them what it’s like to work an entire train alone. Talk to coach passengers who are not allowed to purchase meals from the diner if they don’t carry cash or if delays cause passengers to board after food service has ended. Many of them, especially along lower-income, more rural sections of the national network, do not own a credit card. Eat the food on the trains, which is often unhealthy and undesirable.
Focus on long-distance service. We’re seeing an increase in remote work, so business and commuter passengers might not come back to riding Amtrak. But long-distance passengers have proven their desire for more frequent trips.”
As Amtrak has proven in the past, success with long-distance customers can translate into success in Congress. Amtrak developed champions like Trent Lott and Frank Lautenburg in the past, and can develop champions like Roger Wicker and Maria Cantwell today. If Amtrak engages with its passengers and provides regionally diverse service, it can make passenger rail an issue of national consensus with allies across the aisle.
None of these goals are easy to achieve. They will require diligent time and effort. But they will pay off. At a time when Amtrak has unprecedented funding and national attention, the moment is too great to pass up.
Transit agencies now have the federal funding needed to develop a world-class transit workforce, but pulling it off is another question. We’ve compiled strategies for success from agencies that have implemented real solutions to empower their operator and maintenance workforce.
Sacramento residents line up for a job fair at their Regional Transit District (source: SacRT)
We wrote about the dwindling transit workforce last fall and earlier this spring, but here’s a quick summary.
When the pandemic started, transit operators were already strained by a stressful work environment and long, unpredictable hours. The pandemic presented new challenges, not the least of which was a lack of ridership that left transit agencies strapped for funds. As agencies tried to cope operators were let go, or they saw their wages/hours significantly reduced even as their jobs grew more difficult than ever. (Check out TransitCenter’s report on Bus Operators in Crisis to understand how difficult these jobs have become.)
Now, as ridership is rising, agencies are finding themselves without the necessary staff to meet demand. We’ve made some suggestions before about how to fill this crucial need and keep it filled—in short, transit agencies need to properly invest in their workforce and provide them with the support they require, even through periodic tough times. But right now, as federal funding helps to fill agencies’ wallets, how can they recruit transit staff?
We spoke with transit agencies that are trying to understand their staff and use innovative recruitment strategies to address their workforce needs. Here’s what we heard.
Understanding the employees’ experience
To better understand their employee retention hurdles, Bay Transit of Middle Peninsula Virginia decided to deploy an employee survey. They evaluated employee perceptions of workplace attributes (such as benefits, competitive wages, and less concrete ideas like agency trustworthiness) and identified gaps between employee expectations and Bay Transit’s actual performance. This information helped them determine what their employees needed from them and how they could be a more competitive workplace.
Further down the Chesapeake Coast in Hampton Roads, Virginia, Hampton Roads Transit (HRT) took a more direct approach to employee engagement, this time with a focus on its management team. Like most transit agencies, operators were welcome to attend and speak with the agency’s management team. But many HRT operators did not have the time or means to schedule and/or attend these meetings, and often had no idea how to engage their management at all. So the management team decided to visit the system’s bus depots and in-service vehicles to speak with operators about the issues they were dealing with on the job. This experience allowed them to become better advocates for their employees when speaking with the agency’s governance board and provide their workforce with the support it needs.
More support for current workers
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Missoula Urban Transportation District, or Mountain Line, in Missoula, Montana was in a labor free fall. They were understaffed, with remaining employees facing high burnout and low morale, while voters had approved a transit expansion that was going to require a 30 percent workforce increase. Voters acknowledged that an expansion required increased funding for transit but were unsure of the most impactful ways to spend the funds. In 2021, Mountain Line was only able to retain 50 percent of its new hires. They were going the wrong direction.
In the fall of 2021, Mountain Line developed a new strategy. First, its board decided to use part of the new funding approved by votes to increase wages 15 percent across the board, a massive jump in pay that allowed them to compete with other employers in Missoula. This also made their employees feel more valued. Mountain Line found this strategy to be the most effective for recruitment. They also invested in improving the internal culture for their workforce by initiating a Diversity and Inclusion Committee and improving internal communications. (Read more about Missoula’s efforts to turn the corner on employee retention on page 16 of the Passenger Transport magazine.)
There are many reasons people do not apply to be transit operators. As a transit rider, the job can appear difficult and thankless. Des Moines Area Regional Transit (DART) tried to do something about that by allowing people to test drive buses to see whether they were comfortable behind the wheel. They invited people to the Iowa State Fairgrounds to test drive a 40-foot long bus through an obstacle course. At this event they also advertised a $3,000 sign-on incentive to new drivers with a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) and a $2,000 sign-on incentive to new drivers without a CDL.
The IndyGo transit system in Indianapolis realized they were losing out on applicants with non-violent criminal records. Many of these applicants were well-prepared to be transit operators or mechanics, but they were blocked from working for IndyGo by a rule that had no bearing on their ability to do the job. So IndyGo created the Second Chance hiring initiative to help level the playing field for applicants who may be highly qualified but have had a criminal conviction.
Back in Hampton Roads, HRT has tried to boost their dwindling recruitment numbers by forming a partnership with Tidewater Community College to create the Drive Now program. Drive Now provides free training to prospective transit operators that includes a CDL, a Virginia Career Readiness Certificate, and customer service and workplace skills. These skills and certifications can be expensive to acquire on one’s own, so Drive Now helps pave the way for new applicants to find jobs in transit.
Finding hires in unexpected places
When the Alexandria Transit Company (DASH) found themselves with a shortage of trained technicians to service their buses, they looked beyond their recruitment practices to where those practices were being implemented. They were mostly targeting experienced diesel technicians from heavy vehicle industries with similar skills that are needed for bus maintenance. DASH soon realized, however, that this applicant pool was too narrow to meet their capacity needs, so they widened their search to include technicians from outside fields (mostly automotive) with comparable skills and similar foundations. This brought in talent that may not have discovered careers in transit and reduced the barrier to entry. When veteran operators trained new hires to become diesel mechanics, they discovered that they also deepened their own knowledge and skill.
To address its recruitment issues, the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) turned to its riders. They advertised free rides for anyone that attended hiring events. These riders were familiar with the system, and many were comfortable being trained to operate its buses.
Developing a workforce for the future of transit
Perhaps the newest frontier of transit workforce development is in operating low and zero-emission vehicles. On Tuesday, August 16, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced the first round of 150 grants awarded under the Low- and No-Emission (Low-No) and Bus and Bus Facilities programs. The Low-No program requires grantees to 1) create Zero-Emission Fleet Transition Plans and 2) spend 5 percent of award money on workforce development training, including apprenticeships and other labor-management training programs as recipients make the transition to low or no emission vehicles.
This workforce development requirement yielded some innovative recruitment and training ideas. One example is Omnitrans in San Bernardino County, California, which will spend part of its $9.3 million award to launch its comprehensive workforce development program (under its strategic plan) to increase compensation, improve professional development, provide stability, and improve the internal culture. Another example is MARTA in Atlanta, which will use part of its $19.3 million award to support its 2-year apprenticeship program and collaborations with local technical colleges.
So what?
Though local actors are producing innovative solutions, national problems persist. Transit operators face rising rates of assault from riders. Operators are still recovering from the increased stress of the worst part of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many transit labor forces, even in massive systems like Amtrak, remain overworked and understaffed.
The money to fix these issues is available. The new infrastructure law provided numerous funding streams for workforce development, including the Low-No Program. Also, the U.S. Department of Transportation will now cover 100 percent of the cost of workforce development programs if they are paid for out of the ample-funded highway formula programs.
The time to take decisive action is now. The communities that succeeded often did so because of proactive engagement and collaboration between local advocates and their public officials to explore and implement innovative solutions. It will be up to local administrative and political will to implement the proven strategies laid out in this article.
On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern, we held a webinar to discuss how to maximize the impact of the new Reconnecting Communities Program.
Divisive infrastructure projects, like highways and overpasses built through neighborhoods, continue to restrict travel in cities across the country, creating congestion, hindering development, restricting access to economic opportunity, and worsening public health. Because many of these projects were built in close proximity to communities of color, these communities face disproportionate health, safety, and economic impacts.
In the new infrastructure law, the federal government finally provided a direct funding stream to address this problem. The Reconnecting Communities Program is a valuable federal investment that can begin to move the needle, but the extent of the problem has many wondering if this program’s budget will be enough to make a difference.
Watch our webinar from September 14, 2022 to find out how the Reconnecting Communities Program can be best leveraged to achieve an impact in your community. Director Beth Osborne and Policy Director Benito Pérez will unpack the Reconnecting Communities Program, explaining in clear terms how this program came to be and what it can accomplish. We will also be joined by Erik Frisch, Deputy Commissioner of Neighborhood & Business Development at the City of Rochester, who will describe how Rochester tackled the successful Inner Loop project long before the Reconnecting Communities Program existed, plus share insight into how the city plans to leverage this new source of funding in future projects.
Erik Frisch is Deputy Commissioner for the City of Rochester’s Department of Neighborhood & Business Development.
In this role since January 2022, Erik oversees the City’s Bureau of Business & Housing Development which is responsible for affordable, market-rate, and mixed-use housing programs, economic development initiatives, and real estate management. Mr. Frisch has been with the City of Rochester since 2007, also serving as Manager of Special Projects in the Department of Environmental Services (2018-2021), overseeing coordination of the ROC the Riverway initiative, a bold plan for Rochester’s urban waterfront along the Genesee River, and the Inner Loop North Transformation, and as the City’s Transportation Specialist (2007-2018), where he managed the City’s transportation planning, traffic calming, and traffic control functions. He has played a key role in many other major City initiatives, including the Inner Loop East Transformation, Bicycle Master Plan implementation, Midtown Rising, and Downtown Two-Way Traffic Conversion. Prior to working for the City, Erik served as a Program Manager with the Genesee Transportation Council for nearly six years. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Geography from Clark University in Worcester, MA and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from the University at Buffalo (NY).
Last month, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) proposed a new rule that will require states to measure and set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with highways. This is a critical tool to foster accountability and steer infrastructure investments toward better climate outcomes. It’s essential for the USDOT to finalize this rule and for states to lead the way in realizing its full potential.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure (GGEM), would require state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions tied to highways on the National Highway System (i.e. Interstates and US Routes). This proposal is a key action that Evergreen, Transportation for America, and other advocates have called for. Because the transportation sector emits more greenhouse gas pollution than any other sector of the American economy, data collected from this measure will be a vital tool to support investments in alternative transportation modes, better protect disadvantaged communities, and advance President Biden’s climate goals.
Following the enactment of the critical climate and infrastructure investments contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress and the Biden administration must each play a role in ensuring that these resources are implemented effectively and equitably. At the same time, increased ambition at the state level and bold executive action are essential in order to attain further emissions reductions. New federal rules that enable states to push the envelope are needed to tackle the largest sources of climate pollution, and that includes our transportation sector.
So what is this rule all about?
In 2012 Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), a two-year transportation authorization bill following nearly 3 years of stop-gap extensions. MAP-21 represented a tentative step towards accountability for the billions of dollars the federal government allocates to states every year for transportation, by codifying seven different performance categories for federal highway programs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created performance measures and subsequently required state DOTs to set performance targets aligned with these goals.
But a new and improved version of this measure is back, under the Biden administration. In early July, the FHWA proposed a new draft rule for a GGEM that would establish a method for state DOTs to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than a one-size-fits-all target set by the USDOT, states would be permitted to set their own unique declining targets that collectively lead the US towards net-zero emissions by 2050. Critically, the draft GGEM rule would require these targets to continuously decrease, to cut emissions over time in each state. The proposal is a big step forward from the status quo, but still limited in scope. For example, states face no penalties for failing to meet their established targets.
Here are the four actions the Biden administration and state DOTs must take for this proposal to be successful:
1. The Biden administration must finalize a strong performance measure rule ASAP
While the IIJA is not a transformative climate bill, states have a wide berth in deciding how to allocate formula funding under IIJA. The law also establishes new categories of climate mitigation funding, like the Carbon Reduction Program, and expands the kinds of investments eligible under legacy programs like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. In short, governors and state governments will determine, through the decisions they make about what to build, whether or not the IIJA leads to reductions in climate pollution. However, without the proposed rule, the public has no way to hold states accountable for reducing emissions with the windfall of infrastructure money from the IIJA.
Right now, the FHWA has opened a public comment period for the proposed rule through October 13, 2022. Just like in 2017, this rule is already meeting fierce resistance, from both industry and Senate Republicans.
Some stakeholders are falsely claiming that this proposed rulemaking is outside the scope of the performance measures set forth by Congress in MAP-21. Many congressional leaders who were involved in passing that legislation have set the record straight, emphasizing that this proposal will “fulfill the original congressional intent…” There is plenty of flexibility for states built into the existing rule and the Biden administration must finalize a strong performance measure.
2. The Biden administration should factor in state performance when evaluating other competitive grant programs, and FHWA should improve its performance dashboard
Although most federal transportation funding is formula-based, the USDOT can influence policy significantly through discretionary funds like the Secretary’s RAISE grants or the Reconnecting Communities Program. To ensure the greenhouse gas performance measure doesn’t just “sit on the shelf,” the department should assess the relative ambitions of state greenhouse gas reduction targets and progress states achieve as it awards competitive funds. The Biden administration should also incorporate implementation of the measure into criteria for new programs created by the Inflation Reduction Act, including the Neighborhood Access and Equity grant program and the EPA’s new Climate Pollution Reduction grants.
Moreover, because of the non-binding nature of the performance measure proposed, it’s essential that the emissions data and targets of each state are properly advertised and disseminated. This will allow the data to facilitate increased accountability. Right now, the FHWA’s dashboard for state performance data is buried on its website and the information is not frequently discussed or publicized. Going forward, the FHWA and the Office of the Secretary should reinvigorate the dashboard and regularly update stakeholders and the broader public regarding the progress states are making in setting and reaching their declining targets.
3. States should incorporate performance measures in state policy and go beyond USDOT’s proposal
Washington State’s Move Ahead Washington program invests in public transportation and other sustainable travel options. Flickr photo by SounderBruce
Because the targets required by the draft GGEM would be non-binding, it will ultimately be up to states to make their greenhouse gas targets meaningful in a local context. Going forward, states must better prioritize climate in transportation policy and funding decisions. Many states are already measuring greenhouse gas pollution in the transportation sector in some capacity and tailoring their long-range plans, short-term capital plans, and overall investment strategies accordingly. The following model policies should be considered as states move forward with accessing IIJA/IRA funding and implementing the performance measure.
Colorado: The Colorado Transportation Commission recently approved a new rule that will set mandatory greenhouse gas reduction goals for each MPO. These goals must be incorporated into investments identified in each region’s short and long-term transportation plans. The regional goals can be achieved by reprioritizing planned projects or investing in new mitigation strategies. In most cases, this will mean shifting investments away from the construction and expansion of highways and towards public transit and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Minnesota: Even as demand for electric vehicles has grown and the Biden administration acts to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States continue to increase. States have a tremendous opportunity to act where the federal government has not and institute policies that tackle auto dependency. Minnesota recently adopted a statewide goal to reduce VMT statewide by 20 percent by 2050. More states need to look beyond electric vehicles and work towards shifting travel towards the most sustainable and equitable modes of transportation.
Washington: Washington State DOT is not waiting for the federal government and has already implemented a performance measure for greenhouse gas pollution associated with the National Highway System infrastructure inside the state. Emissions and targets are reported to the federal government biennially. Earlier this year, Washington also enacted Move Ahead Washington, a significant transportation funding package that invests heavily in public transportation and other sustainable modes aimed at reducing car travel.
4. States should implement an equity-first approach to meeting targets
States will have significant discretion when deciding how and where to spend transportation-related IIJA funds, and they should ensure they deploy federal funds with a focus on communities that are already impacted by transportation planning and pollution. Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities suffer the most from vehicle pollution and are historically least likely to receive government investments. By prioritizing these underserved and overburdened communities, states can ensure they are supporting their most vulnerable populations while reducing pollution.
Additionally, state policymakers need to pay careful attention to wealth disparities between white users of the transportation system and people of color, which impact both mode choice and job access. States should consider new incentives for used electric vehicles to supplement the credit for used vehicles contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, and also need to take significant steps to build out networks of Complete Streets and make public transportation more reliable and affordable. Finally, state departments of transportation should prioritize investments that begin repairing past racist policy decisions that were meant to intentionally divide neighborhoods.
Key takeaway
The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States. Because most transportation investment decisions are made at the state level, the USDOT’s new Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure is a critical tool to foster accountability and steer infrastructure investments away from expanding highways and towards vehicle electrification, public transportation, and improvements for other sustainable modes of travel like biking and walking. It’s essential for the USDOT to finalize this rule and for states to lead the way in realizing its full potential.
The appropriations process for 2023 determines funding levels for key infrastructure projects set up under the new infrastructure law. Congress’s proposals and the president’s budget aren’t lining up with the administration’s stated goals to improve safety, reduce emissions, and expand the national rail network.
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or “infrastructure law”) reauthorized the federal transportation program, creating several new programs and increasing funding for many others. The IIJA guaranteed the funding of certain programs for five years through advanced appropriations, but the rest are subject to the annual appropriations process. On March 28, 2022 the Biden administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2023 (FY23) to Congress. On June 22, 2022, the House Appropriations Committee released its FY23 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations funding bill, followed by the Senate version on July 28.
T4A has been following the rollout of the IIJA, but much of our analysis depends on whether Congress chooses to fully fund it. Since 2023 will be the first full fiscal year since the IIJA was passed, this spending bill is the federal government’s first opportunity to set new funding levels since the law was passed. However, the current proposals spell trouble for the administration’s priorities.
Forgetting the promise of the IIJA
In many cases, both the House and Senate failed to fund programs at their IIJA-authorized levels. For example, the IIJA authorizes funding for key safety programs like the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program (SS4A) and Healthy Streets Program at much higher levels than what’s outlined in these proposals. The president’s budget provided $200 million for the SS4A, which can fund needed safety plans and projects, but nothing for Healthy Streets or the Active Transportation Investment Program (ATIIP), which could aid in the creation of active transportation networks.
The Senate zeroed out SS4A and Healthy Streets, while providing only $25 million to ATIIP. (The Senate bill instead prioritized the more flexible RAISE and PROTECT programs, both of which can be used to construct dangerous roads.) The House bill delivers slightly better on safety and active transportation by allocating $100 million to ATIIP, $250 million to SS4A, and $55 million to the Healthy Streets Program, but even their plan funds SS4A at only 8 percent of the level authorized by the IIJA.
Additionally, the Senate allocated $2.5 billion for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, the main competitive grant program available for transit capital projects. This number is about $250 million less than the administration requested and about $500 million less than the House version (granted the House version exceeded the authorized level in the IIJA). CIG is the main competitive grant program available for transit capital projects.
Both proposed bills increase funding levels for Amtrak over FY22 levels, but not in a regionally equitable manner. In particular, the Senate bill allocates almost 40 percent of Amtrak’s funding to the Northeast Corridor, a small portion of Amtrak’s domain, while underfunding Amtrak’s National Network by about 35 percent, denying most of the nation’s rail service over $700 million in needed funding. These uneven investments will further exacerbate the already widespread belief that the Northeast Corridor is economically competitive with the transportation market, when in reality, the Northeast Corridor relies on federal funding just as much as other rail corridors—it simply has historically benefited from more federal funds.
Both bills also stripped the crucial Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rails, a key source of funds for expanding passenger rail service across the country and establishing a national network, of over $1 billion in IIJA-authorized funding. This is all despite a stated commitment in the proposed Senate bill to sustain long-distance passenger rail services and “ensure connectivity throughout the National Network.”
Notably, the House and Senate were able to come to a consensus on one thing: fully funding the Highway Formula Program (Highway Trust Fund) at IIJA levels—$58.765 billion. These funds can be used for a range of projects, but more often than not, they’re used to back highway expansions or other costly infrastructure projects that undermine efforts to improve safety and advance climate goals.
The takeaway
These appropriations proposals were Congress’s first chance to fund programs since the IIJA passed. Though they couldn’t change the authorized funding levels set up in the infrastructure law, which invested a great deal of money into highways and set aside much smaller amounts for safety, transit, and rail, Congress did have the chance to ensure that even these smaller investments could receive their fair share. The decision to cut these programs will undermine the administration’s goals for the transportation system and will make it even harder for the IIJA to achieve its full potential.
The states will still be left with a tremendous amount of control over the safety of our streets and the level of our transportation emissions. The highway programs Congress chose to back are highly flexible, and states can use that flexibility to fund needed projects to boost connectivity, encourage active transportation, and create a better transportation system for all.
The Senate passed the Inflation Reduction Act, a budget reconciliation package that includes some portions of President Biden’s Build Back Better agenda. This is the largest climate investment in U.S. history, and programs in it will help Americans save money and stay safe on our streets. Here’s what you need to know as the bill awaits the President’s signature.
Roads like this one could benefit from redesign projects made possible by the Inflation Reduction Act. Flickr photo by Paul Sableman.
It’s a surprise that we even got a bill
It’s been a while since we wrote about the Build Back Better Act, the previous attempt to pass some of these provisions, so here’s a quick recap:
Congress removed climate-focused investments when the new infrastructure law passed with the hope of including these funds in a reconciliation bill, the Build Back Better Act. However, once those investments were cut from the infrastructure law, those in favor lost any leverage they had to include them in separate legislation, especially since there are restrictions that bar Congress from approving multiple programs that accomplish the same task.
When the Build Back Better Act finally made it to the Senate floor, Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) refused to vote in favor of it. As negotiations stalled repeatedly, it became clear that the Build Back Better Act was dead.
However, in late July, new legislation appeared seemingly out of nowhere. The Inflation Reduction Act was a deal struck between Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Manchin. Noticeably lacking the transit, biking and walking investments climate advocates had hoped to see, this reconciliation package still carried some portions of the Build Back Better Act. Though this package largely preserves the car-based status quo, there are a few wins for transportation, which we note in the section below.
Support for safety, access, equity, and reducing emissions
$3 billion in this package goes to a brand new program called Neighborhood Access and Equity Grants, which help mitigate the danger of overbuilt arterial roadways, especially in underserved areas. This is by far the biggest win.
These grants can be used to redesign roadways to make them safer, providing more mobility options for community residents. In addition, these changes can help alleviate the negative health impacts of living near heavily-trafficked roads by diverting travel to other, less polluting modes of transportation like walking, biking, and rolling. Unlike the Reconnecting Communities Program, these funds can go beyond connecting across highways and railroads to allow redesigning big roadways that create division due to the danger in crossing.
As we said in our statement after the Inflation Reduction Act was released: “By providing funds to redesign these roadways, these grants can help to connect the community, support local economic development, save people money on gas by allowing them to get out of their cars, close an obstacle to economic opportunity and, in the process, save lives.”
Safe, walkable communities are in high demand, and their scarcity makes them expensive places to live. To help ensure that the people who live near divisive or dangerous infrastructure will be able to benefit from any improvements, these grants also help fund anti-displacement efforts in economically disadvantaged communities impacted by redesign projects. $1.1 billion of these grants are specifically designated for economically disadvantaged communities, and to qualify for funding, the areas must have an anti-displacement policy and a community land trust or community advisory board in effect. After decades of making infrastructure decisions without substantial community input, the program encourages decision-makers to involve community members in the planning process. Decision-makers must also include a plan to employ local residents in the redesign process.
Because these grants are embedded in U.S. Code, they go beyond the temporary pilot programs (like Reconnecting Communities) introduced in the infrastructure law to address safety, access, climate, and equity, helping to ensure that these issues can be addressed for years to come.
Additionally, the budget reconciliation package includes clean vehicle tax credits to encourage the transition to electric vehicles. The existing clean vehicle credit is now amended to include not only plug-in electric vehicles but fuel cell vehicles as well. The credit applies to new, used, commercial, and heavy-duty vehicles. Unfortunately, the amended credit adds restrictions on eligibility based on vehicle and battery assembly, which would make many current U.S. electric vehicles ineligible for the credit and make them all ineligible in the coming years (unless EV manufacturers make significant changes). $3 billion is available to support the manufacturing of these vehicles.
The tax credit also extends to USPS vehicles, both purchasing an electric fleet and infrastructure to support the new vehicles. We’ve been advocating for the electrification of heavy-duty vehicles and USPS vehicles with the CHARGE Coalition because these vehicles are responsible for a significant portion of transportation emissions.
Unlike the infrastructure law’s investments, the Inflation Reduction Act’s funds go beyond infrastructure. Keep an eye on Smart Growth America’s blog for more information on the land-use investments that will further help tackle the climate crisis.
The status quo strikes again
This bill will be the largest climate investment in U.S. history. However, when it comes to transportation, overall the bill does almost nothing to counter the infrastructure law, which provided more funding for the same broken status quo approach that led to such high transportation emissions in the first place. Transit is entirely absent. While there are billions for new electric cars, there are no tax credits for e-bikes, which currently outsell electric cars and trucks and have incredible potential to replace car trips entirely and expand who can ride a bike. Yet Congress is still focusing entirely on vehicles, and electric vehicles alone will not dig us out of our current climate crisis. We need electric vehicles, and we need to allow people to drive less overall. The Inflation Reduction Act invests heavily in the former while mostly ignoring the latter.
It’s good to see progress on climate.
This has got to be the 1st step, though. We have so much work to do for the environment—stopping the drilling before it begins, giving people alternatives to auto dependency, building more green, affordable housing. The fight moves on. https://t.co/dxtmUM0aTg
Let this be a lesson to our Congressional leaders. We can’t continue treating transportation as separate from climate. The infrastructure bill is a climate bill, whether it helps or hurts. And if Congress wants to reduce transportation emissions, they can’t cave at the slightest possibility that some infrastructure programs could be included in future legislation. The next time Congress passes a surface reauthorization or any significant infrastructure investment, they must advocate for the full package outright, not only in rhetoric.
This post was written by Mollie Dalbey and Stephen Coleman Kenny, members of the Transportation for America policy team.
The Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), a new formula program released by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides states with $6.4 billion over 5 years for projects and strategies to reduce carbon emissions. However, thanks to a costly loophole, the program could end up making emissions worse.
Funds for the CRP could support more active transportation systems like protected bike lanes, but right now, it looks like spending is likely to be diverted to other projects. Flickr photo by Bart Everson.
The $6.4 billion Carbon Reduction Program (CRP), created under the new infrastructure law, is a substantial investment in carbon reduction. Under the program, each state must create detailed plans for how they will reduce transportation emissions. The money must be used to create and expand systems for public transit, active transportation (walking, biking, and rolling), congestion pricing, and other strategies to reduce emissions.
The CRP presents states with an opportunity to have a real impact on limiting greenhouse gas emissions. However, it’s important to note that this is just a small pile of cash compared to the other major funding streams in the infrastructure law, many of which states have traditionally used to make emissions worse. To effectively deliver on climate, states will have to move away from the status quo approach of building more and more roadways that increase emissions. That means they will need to make proper use of CRP funds and other federal dollars at their disposal.
Unfortunately, as we’ll cover below, there is little accountability to ensure states follow through, which means the FHWA will have a lot of work to do if it wants to get the most out of the CRP.
A high-emissions loophole
The CRP allows states to avoid using program funds for their intended purpose. State DOTs can flex up to 50 percent of CRP funds to other transportation projects including ones like highway expansions that increase emissions, as long as they records a reduction in carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, state reductions don’t have to be linked to any particular target. The FHWA is still developing their methodology for what emissions reductions will qualify for flexing funding out of the CRP, but all signs point to leniency. In other words, states that see reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions will be able to use carbon reduction funds to increase emissions. At the moment, the FHWA has not stated a specific level of carbon reduction required prior to flexing funds, which means states can start flexing funds to high-emissions projects after recording minuscule emissions reductions.
States are already spending their CRP dollars despite the fact that carbon reduction strategies (CRS), the plans they should be using to appropriately utilize CRP funding, are not due to the FHWA until November 15, 2023, nearly halfway through the infrastructure law’s funding timeline. These strategies can take up to 90 days to review and could still take rounds of adjustment before they are accepted by the FHWA. States without a reviewed CRS cannot adequately plan CRP spending, so there are no guarantees that the program will be able to meet its goal of reducing emissions.
A complimentary tool for transparency and accountability
The FHWA might be able to leverage a proposed regulation it rolled out for comment on July 15 to get the most out of the CRP. The proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions measure would require states to measure the total amount of GHG emissions produced by transportation and reduce them to half of 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Because of these declining targets, the new rule might incentivize states to use their CRP money to reduce emissions. However, that depends on how closely states adhere to the emissions measure guidance.
So far, climate-unfriendly states have not been too keen on listening to the FHWA. Enforcement of the GHG emissions measure will take diligent administrative action, which is uncertain even in administrations friendly to climate action like the Biden administration. Congress could ensure the success of the CRP by holding states accountable for failing to meet GHG emissions measure targets.
The bottom line: FHWA must add some chutzpah to the CRP
In order to make this program consequential for reducing transportation emissions, the FHWA needs to make changes. We won’t be able to reach our nation’s carbon reduction goals if even the programs aimed at reducing emissions are making our emissions worse. To start, they must require CRP funds to be used solely for the purpose of carbon reduction until states have hit benchmarks similar to those in the GHG emissions measure.
After states hit the target level of carbon reduction (based on emission per capita and per economic unit), states should only flex funds into projects which will not counteract those reductions (e.g. transit and rail). Congress can also nudge the FHWA towards this by clarifying the intention of the program as only allowing states to flex money out if they are making real progress on transportation emissions.
The FHWA must also outline an adequate timeline for the completion of carbon reduction strategies, requiring states to demonstrate how they plan to use their funds and that they have reached the benchmark prior to flexing to other programs. Climate change is an ever-growing problem, and half measures will not help us reach our goals. The FHWA must provide more structure to this program, or else billions of dollars in climate funding could be spent in vain.
Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.
Much of the work of smart transportation focuses on playing defense against divisive infrastructure projects that would make travel more difficult. Now, communities and advocates have a small but real opportunity to go on offense and remove or mitigate harmful stretches of transportation infrastructure.
On June 30, 2022, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) released a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for the Reconnecting Communities competitive grant program (RCP). States and localities can apply for funding to remove, retrofit, mitigate, or replace an existing expressway, viaduct, principal arterial, transit or rail line, gas pipeline, intermodal port, or an airport that creates barriers to communities. They can also apply for funding to plan such projects.
States and cities have always been allowed to use federal funds for reconnecting communities, but these funds can be used for a variety of purposes, and more often than not, decision makers have opted to build new infrastructure instead of repairing past mistakes. The RCP is unique because it cannot be used for other purposes—it can only be used for the narrow purpose of undoing or mitigating the damage caused by divisive infrastructure, giving advocates a great opportunity to rally local support for reconnection projects.
Removing harmful road infrastructure is important, but so is making space for the community to design what replaces those roads. Grants that include equitable design, community partnerships, intermodal mobility benefits, and anti-displacement strategies are most likely to be selected by USDOT. Full details on these criteria are included in the NOFO.
A tested solution
Projects to reconnect communities are not a new idea. During the interstate highway boom of the 1960s, the city of Rochester, New York constructed a network of highways throughout the city, including the Inner Loop, which destroyed much of the heart of the city. Like in most American cities, this destruction primarily targeted black neighborhoods.
In 2017, local officials in Rochester decided to try to make things right. They used a combination of federal and local money to convert two-thirds of a mile of Inner Loop East—12 lanes of expressway and frontage road—into one two-lane low-speed street, eliminating bridges and retaining walls while freeing up six acres of land for new development.
The project was a massive success for both the city budget and local development. It produced $229 million in economic development from only $23.6 million in public investment. It led to a 50 percent increase in walking and 60 percent increase in biking in the surrounding area. On the new land freed up by removing the highway, developers have since built commercial space and 534 new housing units, about half of which are affordable. The removal of Inner Loop East was so successful that the city is now planning to remove another stretch: Inner Loop North.
Rochester is not alone. Syracuse, New York is planning to convert a 1.4-mile stretch of I-81 through its downtown into a “community grid.” Near downtown New Orleans, residents of the historically black Tremé neighborhood have battled for years to remove the stretch of Claiborne Expressway (I-10) that runs through their community (pictured above). The Freeway Fighters Network includes even more communities looking to cap, remove, or even prevent divisive infrastructure.
Every city in the U.S. can benefit from highway removal because every city has its own history of communities being demolished and isolated due to roadway construction. The RCP provides an opportunity for advocates and officials alike to listen to marginalized communities and apply for funding to implement what they need. Rochester and Syracuse can be used as models, but every community will have the flexibility to find an approach that meets their specific needs.
The program’s limitations
The RCP can fund important, restorative projects, but its resources were severely limited by Congress. The program only has $1 billion to give out over the next five years. So this year, USDOT can only award $195 million in grants. For capital construction grants, the minimum grant is $5 million, and USDOT anticipates grants ranging from $5 million to $100 million apiece. So while we do not know the exact number of grants that will be awarded this year, it will likely only be a handful. Planning grants will be awarded at a maximum of $2 million.
USDOT knows funding is tight, so they will designate projects that are well deserving but need more than they can offer as “Reconnecting Extra.” When projects with the Reconnecting Extra status submit future applications for competitive grants like RAISE, they will receive favorable consideration from USDOT. Likewise, if the project is pursuing a TIFIA or a RRIF loan, USDOT will work to consider additional assistance permissible under those loan programs.
We would like to see this program funded more substantially, but the president’s budget and current Congressional Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2023 only allocated the bare minimum. For now, advocates will need to fight hard to make sure their city is selected and demand states and cities make proper use of other federal funds to close the gap.
Transportation for America members have access to exclusive resources that provide further detail on this topic. To view memos and other members-only resources, visit the Member Hub located at t4america.org/members. (Search “Member Hub” in your inbox for the password, or new members can reach out to chris.rall@t4america.org for login details.) Learn more about membership at t4america.org/membership.
In response to the proposed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne released this statement:
We are glad to see Congress is taking climate needs and inflation reduction seriously. We are particularly excited that they included $3 billion in Neighborhood Access and Equity grants to redesign arterial roadways, particularly those that impact communities of color. This is a valuable, needed investment to repair a longstanding barrier to accessing jobs and services especially for non-drivers, which will support local economic development and knit communities back together across overbuilt roadways.
Huge arterial roadways become a barrier and divide communities precisely because they are not safe. Their design prioritizes high-speed vehicle travel through the corridor over all other road users, including drivers trying to cross and anyone moving through the area outside of a car. The result is an ever-growing number of pedestrians, particularly pedestrians of color, being hit and killed on our roadways. Smart Growth America’s new Dangerous by Design report documents that 67 percent of pedestrian deaths occur on arterials, which make up 15 percent of roadways. By providing funds to redesign these roadways, these grants can help to connect the community, support local economic development, save people money on gas by allowing them to get out of their cars, close an obstacle to economic opportunity and, in the process, save lives.
The role street design plays in pedestrian deaths has been overlooked for far too long. These grants are an important step to boost local economies and improve the safety of our streets. We thank Congressional leaders for including the important program in the reconciliation.
