Skip to main content

Tag: congress

The incoming Congress still has plenty of transportation work to do

As the sun sets on the 117th Congress with the bipartisan infrastructure law under their belts, it is up to the 118th Congress to deliver meaningful oversight and leadership on implementing those funds and guide the future of America’s transportation system.

Legislators like Rep. Peter DeFazio (in focus) retired in 2023, turning leadership over to other members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Source: Flickr/Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Democrats

What did the 117th Congress accomplish?

When it comes to transportation policy, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) collectively authorize nearly $700 billion in programs that directly touch America’s transportation industry or play a supporting role. 

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, known as the IIJA or 2021 infrastructure law, provides around $643 billion in new federal funding for a wide range of surface transportation infrastructure projects. (Get everything you need to know on this law here.) Congressional appropriators now decide (each year) how much of the law’s annual funding is allocated to its programs. While parts of the funding are virtually guaranteed by statutory formulas, legislators have some discretion and congressional appropriators are already maintaining the status quo at the expense of needed change.

For example, while the highway formula program received nearly all of its funding commitment (97 percent of the funds promised by the IIJA), other vital programs did not. The Active Transportation Infrastructure investment program would fund pedestrian sidewalks and cycling infrastructure, providing more choices in transportation, but it received $0 of the $200 million committed in the IIJA in fiscal year 2022 (FY22) and only $45 million funded in fiscal year 2023 (FY23). The Amtrak Northeast Corridor also received only 80 percent of what IIJA committed, while the national passenger rail network received only 66 percent of its expected funds.

While it’s good news that transit formula funds were at nearly 100 percent of the IIJA funding commitment, overall transit funding is still too low to keep up with the extensive transit repair backlog or the operational cost needed to fund America’s transit system. 

The Inflation Reduction Act

The IRA’s primary focus is on economic investment and innovation in reducing America’s carbon emissions, focusing on electric vehicles, buses, and other freight trucks. Electrifying our many different vehicle fleets is necessary, but this is not a sufficient step to curb our emissions without other investments in transit and changes to the transportation network overall. (Don’t miss the new report on that very topic from the CHARGE Coalition, of which T4America is a core member.) In this regard, the 117th Congress has failed to ensure a secure and efficient future for American transportation. The IRA’s goals for electrification will only be attainable if other policies are tapped to produce fewer and shorter vehicle trips, and fewer cars on the roads overall due to improved alternative modes of transportation. 

However, the IRA also codified the $3 billion Neighborhood Access and Equity Program, which can be used to cover highways or convert them into boulevards, add bike lanes or sound barriers, provide better connections to transit, build green stormwater infrastructure, and make roadway safety improvements. These programs build on the momentum of past projects that have reconnected communities, like this one in Milwaukee.

Click here to learn more about the IRA.

Transportation work is not over for Congress — far from it

While we now have a long-term authorization in place that shapes the broad contours of funding and policy, the members of the 118th Congress do not have the luxury of checking out on transportation. They have ample opportunities to build upon the previous Congress’s successes—and even improve upon their work and make up for past mistakes. Here’s where they can start:

Even in a divided and polarized House, there could still be opportunities to work together

The 118th Congress was sworn in on January, 7th, 2023 after a slight delay, as House Republicans struggled to cooperate to elect a new Speaker. However, in the compromise to elect Speaker McCarthy, a new House rule was adopted that will allow representatives to debate bills on the House floor before being called to a vote.

Given the realities of the slim majority Republicans possess in the House (eight seats, five of which are held by far-right representatives) analysts believe this rule could provide opportunities for moderate Republicans to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats on key transportation legislation and IIJA appropriations, which will continue to be debated year after year during the IIJA’s five-year lifespan. What gets 100 percent of the funding spelled out in the IIJA, and what gets a reduced share? Congress will decide.

Set better goals, measure progress

Congressional oversight is one of their most important responsibilities. To pass bipartisan legislation, Congress should strive for goal-oriented oversight. For example, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has an important role as a watchdog, and should be regularly asking whether or not this historic infusion of infrastructure funding is actually producing what was promised by their predecessors when it comes to the state of good repair, improving access and mobility, and other goals. Legislators (and the president) made hefty promises what this funding would accomplish, and this Congress should be asking hard questions about where the money is going.

They should also clearly define the transportation problems facing Americans, clearly restate the implementation goals of the federal transportation program, and investigate solutions supported by the programs in the IIJA and IRA. One smart way for Congress to accomplish this is through fact-finding oversight hearings. Fact-finding hearings feature one or more panels of witnesses who are selected for their expertise or their representation of a particular group. Developing goal-oriented policy in this manner could cultivate a collaborative atmosphere in Congress as they pass appropriations during these next two years of the IIJA’s funding lifespan. 

Take advantage of new opportunities

A proposal from Congressman Hank Johnson focuses on allocating funds to the operational budgets of transit systems to improve services and boost ridership. $20 billion provided annually over four years would provide more frequent service on bus and rail lines and prioritize improving service in areas where it is currently subpar, in disadvantaged communities, and in areas of persistent poverty. Funding under this bill would make “substantial improvements to transit service” working towards a more equitable America. 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding is set to expire in FY23 and should be low-hanging fruit for bipartisan action. While T4America focuses specifically on surface transportation, FAA authorization does present opportunities to integrate America’s airports with their surrounding urban transit, active transportation, and intercity passenger rail systems and leverage other funding provided through the IIJA.   

The bottom line

The next two years of this new Congress will help determine whether or not the historic funds in the IIJA and the IRA result in changes to our deeply embedded car-centric transportation network. 

The ability to capitalize on this moment of inflection depends on the House and Senate’s ability to collaborate and pass bipartisan legislation to meet the needs of the American people. Over the next two years, Congress should work together to increase funding for projects that advance mobility choice (i.e. rail, transit, and active transportation) while also addressing important issues of safety, equity, and reducing emissions. 

How to engage with new elected leaders

Atlanta BeltLine ground breaking

New state and federal leaders will take office in January. Where they stand on transportation will have a significant impact on the future of mobility in America. Here’s how you can engage with your new elected officials to help improve our transportation system in coming years.

Atlanta BeltLine ground breaking
How can you work with elected officials to help pave the way for more projects like this? Flickr photo by Maigh.

The federal government hands states hundreds of millions of dollars on an annual basis, with few strings attached. Governors, state legislators, and local leaders have a great deal of money to deliver the projects, services, and results that voters demand.

Yet the goals of state transportation programs are often misaligned with voter priorities. For example, a recent report from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program showed that by one measure, states use less than four percent of flexible federal dollars on transit, even though they could spend much more. Learn more on TransitCenter’s blog.

Too often, state leaders focus spending on only one result: eliminating congestion. This approach overlooks voter concerns like equity, maintenance, safety, and climate emissions—and by the time decision makers get around to addressing those issues, they’ve spent a great deal of money and time on roadway expansions. (And these expensive new lanes often fill with more traffic, thanks to a process called “induced demand.” We wrote about this costly cycle in our report The Congestion Con.)

We don’t have to settle for more of the same. With new leaders headed into office, advocates have an opportunity to change this old pattern and help create a better transportation system for their community.

New governors can steer the transportation system in the right direction by providing clear instructions on the goals of the state transportation program so that the transportation department can start making progress on those priorities. In addition, governors can choose strong leadership in their own office, the state DOT, and in some cases, the transportation commission that oversees the DOT. The governor should choose leaders that understand the transportation program and are motivated to make needed changes.

Though often overlooked, local leaders, like mayors, might be the most crucial stakeholders in transportation decision-making. When pushes for smart transportation in communities succeed, it’s often due to support from local leaders who lobby for the project on the state and federal level and bring other elected officials to the table.

levels of government
Each level of government has different levers to make change.

Finally, the federal government still has an important role to play. The authorized funding levels set in the infrastructure law aren’t guaranteed, and we’ve already seen federal policymakers underfund transit and defund certain active transportation programs. The Biden administration also makes the final calls on competitive grant funding, determining which projects will benefit from key funding programs like the Reconnecting Communities Program. By making these decisions, the administration can help ensure federal dollars are advancing the President’s goals, including enhancing equity in the transportation system.

With critical decisions happening at all three levels of government, engaging with new leaders can feel like a daunting task. These three pieces of advice can help you maximize your influence to achieve connected, healthy, equitable communities.

Check in early and often

As their constituent, you have unique power to educate elected officials on the challenges and opportunities that impact the transportation space. State and local leaders will ultimately determine how much funding will go to projects and programs near you, including safety improvements, transit, and highway expansions. Engage with them early to develop an understanding of how and when transportation funding will be used and let them know what your priorities are. Take part in public comment and review periods to encourage them to make the right calls on key policy, investment, and implementation actions.

There are many ways you can reach out to your elected leaders, including joining sign-on letters, engaging with their social media, writing them a letter, calling them up, and even visiting their offices. If they start to move the needle in the right direction, don’t forget to praise them.

Invite your state leaders to join the State Legislator Champions Institute so that they can become effective Complete Streets advocates. Learn more about the Institute here and join an information session on December 6 at 3 p.m. ET.

Find the linchpins

Government decision making happens in phases. Elected officials set their priorities, identify issues and approaches to addressing them, create a plan (including time, resources, and budget parameters), and seek input on their budget, policy, or implementation decisions. Once these steps of the process are complete, they’ll evaluate their progress on their priorities and begin the process again.

When having conversations with elected leaders, seek out information about where they’re at in the process and tailor your asks to the present moment. Find out when public hearings are scheduled and attend them. Get in touch with your local advocacy organizations and follow their lead. Finally, don’t be afraid to point out if important details were missed at an earlier stage of the process (as activist Michael Moritz did in Texas).

T4A members receive regular updates on opportunities for advocacy on the Hill. Learn more about T4A membership here.

Look for common ground

Our transportation needs are frequently touted as bipartisan concerns, and for good reason. The success of our transportation system has a direct impact on every constituent, influencing economic vitality, public health, climate emissions, and everyone’s ability to access the goods and services they need. 

Often, elected officials enter office without a clear understanding of how the transportation system can help them reach their goals. By making these connections clear, you can create strong allies, even with leaders who initially disagree with you.

Transportation for America Chair John Robert Smith had just that experience when he brought passenger rail to Meridian, MS—he found that Republican politicians, opposed to passenger rail, were willing to support his project once he explained its economic benefits. To further build support, he humanized the issue by bringing decision makers face to face with constituents to explain how passenger rail impacts them.

The bottom line

It’s not uncommon for federal, state, and local elected leaders to lack a strong understanding of our infrastructure needs. But decision makers at all levels need to know that the transportation program can help them deliver on key issues for their constituents, regardless of their political affiliation. By engaging with your new leaders, you can help them make progress on climate, safety, equity, access, and repair goals.

Our advice to USDOT and Congress: Make no little plans

Senator Capito uses visual aids at the EPW hearing
Senator Capito uses visual aids at the EPW hearing
Senator Capito uses visual aids to criticize the FHWA memo. Still from the hearing.

A Senate committee called Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to testify about implementing the new infrastructure law, but much of the day was spent criticizing or defending FHWA’s nonbinding memo encouraging states to prioritize state of good repair, safety, and climate mitigation—displaying a deep confusion in some members of Congress about the limits of USDOT’s authority.

On the heels of the president’s State of the Union address the night before, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) convened a hearing on March 2, 2022 to talk about the infrastructure law. 

Senator Carper (D-DE) opened with a discussion of the pivotal work the Committee took in formulating and passing the infrastructure law last year, and continued to underscore the need to take action on climate change (with Senator Carper noting 28 percent of emissions coming from transportation) as well as safety (after an alarming increase in fatalities, especially for vulnerable road users). 

Over the course of the hearing, various senators chimed in to check on the implementation status of various programs or projects, whether the electrification of the transportation system versus alternative fuel options, truck parking, reconnecting communities, Carbon Reduction and PROTECT formula programs, transportation accessibility, Buy America, or port infrastructure. But a considerable amount of discussion from a number of senators—most notably by ranking member Senator Capito (R-WV)—focused on the nonbinding FHWA memo released on December 16 (which T4America supported as a strong statement about how states should absolutely choose to spend this historic influx of cash).

In her opening remarks, Senator Capito deemed the FHWA memo a threat to the policy framework of the infrastructure law that the committee worked so hard to put together, advancing a partisan Biden administration agenda and creating a system of winners and losers depending on the project. Using large visual aids, Senator Capito accused FHWA of plagiarizing language in the memo about fix-it-first over capacity expansion from the House’s INVEST Act. The crux of Capito’s opposition to the memo is the suggestion of a (non-existent) mandate (and a one-size-fits-all context) in the fix-it-first language over capacity expansion. In later commentary, Senator Cramer (R-ND) went further by noting that the memo was threatening the concept of federalism and the powers that states have.

As Jeff Davis at Eno noted on Twitter, this is completely false:

As Secretary Buttigieg pointed out during the hearing, the memo serves as a values document (not a mandate or part of the infrastructure law), incorporating what USDOT is hearing from states and previous transportation reauthorizations. He also noted it would be a disservice to not remind the states of their flexibility to pursue goals like repair, safety, climate change, and equity.

Secretary Buttigieg at EPW hearing
Secretary Buttigieg at the EPW hearing

Senator Carper jumped into the conversation at this point to provide a core history lesson regarding state of good repair from (1) Congressional values in the federal transportation program that are codified into law and (2) values shared by a previous Republican administration, underscoring how the FHWA memo is entirely consistent with pre-established values. Senator Cardin (D-MD) also added that these values expressed in the FHWA memo are key priorities that are also reflected in the infrastructure law and shouldn’t be surprising.

Senator Cardin uses visual aids at EPW hearing
Senator Cardin at the EPW hearing

Overall, the day was full of much fury, signifying very little.

Republicans on the committee fiercely claimed that this unenforceable, nonbinding memo was in fact enforceable. They claimed that encouraging states to improve the state of repair, improve safety, and reduce the negative impacts of the transportation system goes against Congressional intent, that it will block projects like highway expansions, and that it lays out how competitive grant applications will be reviewed. 

Let us be clear: an unenforceable memo cannot stop anything or make any state choose to spend their money more responsibly. We agree that the language of the law failed to move the needle enough on topics like safety, repair, climate, etc. But we’re frankly shocked to hear the memo’s critics admit their preference for the broken status quo so boldly. This administration will and should evaluate projects for competitive, discretionary funding that they control using their priorities, which is how competitive grant programs have always been implemented by all administrations.  

Those who spent the day vociferously criticizing this memo are either ignorant to the law and how the program works, or they are just boldly stating their lack of interest in the outcomes they promised the American people when they passed the IIJA. Both are really bad news. It’s disconcerting that the bulk of this hearing was spent fighting about a priority statement—an utter waste of time. The lesson we hope USDOT gets from this is to be bold and not waste time with little plans. This modest action they took got all the blow back of a truly controversial move while in fact accomplishing nothing. As we move forward on the implementation of the IIJA, we hope USDOT and the EPW Committee reflects on the words of the architect and planner Daniel Burnham:

Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will not themselves be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever growing insistency.

The infrastructure bill is finished—what you need to know

Infrastructure will be built, but what kind?

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill is notable both for including Congress’ most significant effort to address climate change, and its general failure to make fundamental changes to a transportation program that’s responsible for massive increases in transportation emissions, worsening state of repair, unequal access to jobs, and increasing numbers of people killed on our roadways.

promo graphic for a guide to the IIJA

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

First, you can read our short statement about the deal’s passage (signed by President Biden on Monday, November 15!) In a sea of media coverage and complicated explainers, we wanted to drill into just a few basic things you should know and remember about this new bill:

1) Transportation policy and funding is now wrapped up until 2026

Did you catch this one?

The way this deal was repeatedly referred to in the media as a standalone infrastructure bill created a lot of confusion, so it’s worth being clear on this count: Congress just wrapped up the every-five-years process of transportation reauthorization because the Senate’s five-year transportation policy proposals passed earlier this summer were the foundation of this larger infrastructure deal. There’s a lot of additional money that will go into various forms of infrastructure, but of the $645 billion total for transportation, about $300 billion is for a new five-year reauthorization to replace the expiring FAST Act. The additional ~$345 billion consists of annual appropriations of various kinds which are not guaranteed or sourced from gas taxes via the highway trust fund (see #4 below for more on that.)

So other than the annual appropriations process where Congress decides funding levels for some discretionary programs like the transit capital construction program or BUILD grants, funding and policy decisions are now finished for five years, and the focus now moves to implementation, i.e., how this money gets spent and where. 

2) So what was in the five-year reauthorization included in the deal?

We took a long look at the good, the bad, and the ugly when the deal passed the full Senate back in August, and almost nothing has changed since:

[It] includes a lot of new spending, but that spending isn’t directed toward outcomes, much less the priorities that the President articulated in The American Jobs Plan. Though this bill mentions safety, climate, and equity often, as it stands, it will fail to produce meaningful shifts. “The White House will soon discover that they’ve dealt themselves a challenging hand in their long-term effort to address climate change and persistent inequities, while kicking the can down a crumbling road that’s likely to stay that way,” T4America director Beth Osborne said in our full statement after Tuesday’s final vote.

There is some good news, though. When it comes to the next five years of policy and spending, passenger rail was the biggest winner, making the expansion of reliable, frequent rail service to more Americans a cornerstone of the deal’s approach. The rail portion ​​will “1) expand, increase, and improve service, 2) focus on the entire national network (rather than just the northeast corridor), 3) encourage more local, ground-up coalitions of local-state partnerships for improving or adding new service, and 4) make it easier to finance projects and expand that authority to transit-oriented development projects.” We explained these provisions in-depth in this post.

3) More money for transit but with policy crafted in 2015 (and before!)

The transit portion of reauthorization was never produced by the Senate Banking Committee, which means that this deal basically carried forward the status quo approach to transit policy from the now-replaced FAST Act, but with a historic amount of transit funding (along with a historic amount of highway funding.) The House’s discarded five-year INVEST Act proposal contained some vital improvements to transit policy, but it was ignored by the Senate when assembling the larger infrastructure deal.

We’ll have much more about the modest changes to the transit program in a later post—including what’s next.

4) What else was included in the non-reauthorization portions of the bill’s $1.2 trillion price tag?

This great chart from the National Association of Counties shows where the additional transportation money— outside of the ~$300 billion, five-year authorization—is going:

For more on the non-transportation inclusions in the bill, you can read this post from Smart Growth America with a broader look at the package and what was included on climate resilience, broadband, and other areas. 

5) Time to hold the administration and Congress accountable for accomplishing their ambitious promises

The Biden administration has made significant promises to taxpayers about what they are going to accomplish with this historic investment when it comes to repair, climate change, safety, equity, and an equitable economic recovery from the past year and a half. They’ve assembled a tremendous team of superstar smart people at USDOT to make it happen. They’ve shown their willingness to use their administrative authority to at least temporarily halt damaging highway projects. They’ve created a litany of helpful new competitive grant programs they now need to write the rules for awarding. 

But watching the president sign the bill isn’t just a celebration, it’s a cue for them to get to work with some major urgency: the first year of this money is flowing out the door already, so states are already pouring this money into projects already underway. 

It will require a herculean effort from them to make sure this bill accomplishes what they believe it will. As we said when the deal was first approved by Congress on November 5, “The administration is confident they can make substantial progress on all of these goals despite those deficiencies. Most states are promising to use the flexibility they fought for to make marked improvements across these priorities. To make that happen, both the administration and the states will need to make major changes to how they approach transportation, but we know they can do it.” 

Because they missed the chance to codify a wholly different approach to transportation into law, they only have the option of making changes that are administrative or imposed by the executive branch—changes which can all be undone by a future administration.

Now is the time for us, the media, advocates and local leaders of all stripes to hold them accountable for what they have promised to accomplish with this historically massive infrastructure bill. 

Step one for repairing a problem: Stop making it worse

An excavator digs a massive hole titled "Dangerous Roads $$$". On the other side of the hole, a man tries to fill the hole with a small pile of dirt (labeled "Safety Improvements $." The comic is labeled "U.S. Approach to Road Safety."

Swap in any pressing issue—climate change, repair, safety—and this new illustration by Jean Wei describes the approach to solving it within the much-debated infrastructure bill, which passed on its own late last Friday. You’ll be hearing a lot of unfettered praise for it today, but we’re far more circumspect.

An excavator digs a massive hole titled "Dangerous Roads $$$". On the other side of the hole, a man tries to fill the hole with a small pile of dirt (labeled "Safety Improvements $." The comic is labeled "U.S. Approach to Road Safety."
This new illustration was produced for T4America by visual artist Jean Wei. IG/@weisanboo

As T4America director Beth Osborne said today,

“[The deal] spends a lot of money but fails to target it to the needs of the day: building strong economic centers, providing equitable access to opportunity, addressing catastrophic climate change, improving safety, or repairing infrastructure in poor condition.”

The bill has a lot of exciting wheelbarrows of new money, but unfortunately it also includes a lot of excavators for the status quo:

This Politico story from Tanya Snyder captures how the bill will fail to move the needle on reducing emissions and addressing climate change, among other issues:

“Congress has cleared a multibillion-dollar infrastructure package that could improve Americans’ commutes and quality of life, but which fails to meet President Joe Biden’s ambitious pledge to cut emissions off at their root: the transportation sector. …Beth Osborne [and T4America]… accused Congress of ‘doubling down on a dinosaur of a federal transportation program’ that she said has produced a dangerous, inequitable and unsustainable transportation network.”

We had a good chance to do something better with the House’s five-year INVEST Act proposal, but the Senate tossed that one aside in favor of making their own inferior five-year proposal the foundation of the larger infrastructure deal.

As Politico notes, this infrastructure bill is completely missing “any requirement that would prioritize repairing things before building new,” which would ensure we actually make progress on repair instead of just spending billions to build new things we can’t afford to maintain. The discarded House bill also would have taken the modest but vital step of requiring states to “measure and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

What’s next?

With the infrastructure deal completed, the Build Back Better budget reconciliation act is still awaiting action. That package does include some important provisions for improving access to transit, grants for reducing emissions, and more. But it’s tough to swallow knowing that the infrastructure deal is likely to make many of these same issues worse, something we wrote about last week:

“We are encouraged to know that Congress is taking seriously the need to address climate change, equity, and economic recovery. But the $40 billion included here unfortunately won’t be enough to redeem the $645 billion-plus infrastructure bill that will continue to make many of those same problems worse. As we’ve said throughout the second half of this year, the administration has a difficult task ahead to advance their stated goals of repair, safety, climate, equity, and access to jobs and services through these small improvements, while spending historic amounts on unchanged programs that have historically made those issues worse.”

Read that post here (updated with info about the approved infrastructure deal) and share our new cartoon above on social media.

We’ve got a lot to say about this new legislation. We’ll be back soon with a detailed rundown of what’s in the infrastructure deal, a look at the highlights, and how we can make the best things possible happen with funding that will soon touch every city and community.

Transit funds could crack under the pressure of the budget deadline

entrance to the USDOT headquarters

The upcoming continuing resolution to fund the government and avert a shutdown won’t include transportation spending, piling on the pressure to pass the infrastructure deal and budget reconciliation. Congress could end up gutting the reconciliation package to make a deal.

Image by U.S. Department of Transportation

Congress is currently negotiating a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government at current levels and keep things open and functioning through December 3, but, unlike most other CRs, transportation is not in the current CR. So the race is on to pass both the surface transportation reauthorization (the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Senate’s infrastructure deal), and the budget reconciliation by the current September 27 deadline set by Congressional Democrats.

If passed, the current CR will fund only the FAA and the FHWA’s emergency fund, no other transportation programs. This means that without reauthorization, normal authorized funding provided to highways, transit, rail and other programs will come to a halt after September 30, even under this CR. Of course, these things will be funded by reauthorization and reconciliation if they pass, but that is not a given. So without the safety net of a CR, Congress must pass reauthorization by September 30 or risk a shutdown of much of US DOT. That date is coming fast, and the United States government has already begun shutdown planning procedures.

Speaker Pelosi’s dual-track approach has tied the fate of reauthorization to that of budget reconciliation. If Congress can pass reconciliation, they will most likely be able to pass reauthorization. But key Senators are debating the budget’s $3.5 trillion funding level, which may mean that in order to get both bills to pass, Congress could cut reconciliation funding for the transit programs we applauded last week.    

For those who wish to improve the nation’s infrastructure, reconciliation is just as important as reauthorization. 

If Congress passes reauthorization without the transportation funding in the budget reconciliation package, they will cut $10 billion in transit funding and remove all operations funding for transit agencies. They will fail to provide direct funding to localities, fail to connect affordable housing to services and amenities, and fail to address the impacts of U.S. transportation policy on communities of color.

As we said when the reauthorization text was released, the bill does not represent any sort of policy shift toward safety or connectivity that our communities so desperately need. In fact, it cements irresponsible highway expansion. The transportation programs included in the budget reconciliation package move this reauthorization in the right direction.

To avoid a shutdown that could cripple transportation projects and to improve the infrastructure deal, reconciliation is just as vital to pass as the deal itself.

What we want Secretary Buttigieg to answer at the House Transportation hearing tomorrow

Tomorrow, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg heads to Capitol Hill for his first hearing as Secretary, where the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will question him on the Biden administration’s goals for infrastructure. We’ve been impressed by Sec. Buttigieg’s rhetoric so far—from his commitment to repairing the damage in Black and brown communities caused by urban highways to making fix-it-first his “mantra“—so we want to hear how he’ll make it happen.

People biking on a trail near the Kennedy Center, Washington DC. Photo by Angela N. on Greater and Lesser Washington’s Flickr pool.

Stimulus

  • The administration is discussing a major stimulus package focused on infrastructure funding. Will that package specifically address climate, equity and repairing crumbling infrastructure rather than simply adding additional funding to the existing programs that have failed to address these issues?
  • In the 2009 Recovery Act, Congress intended to spur job creation, but that was not how the infrastructure funds were targeted. In an attempt to move quickly, Congress defaulted to existing programs that were poorly tailored to address the issues at hand. How can we learn from that experience and do better this time?

Repair and maintenance

  • You and the administration have repeatedly acknowledged the need to fix our transportation infrastructure: our roads, bridges, and transit. Yet, our current federal programs have not successfully been able to do this. Why is this the case?
  • Can we get to “fix-it-first” with the way we currently prioritize funding?

Safety

  • A recent report by the National Complete Streets Coalition found that pedestrian fatalities have increased by 45 percent over the last 10 years. Much of this has to do with dangerous street design and transportation laws that make safety for those walking and rolling an afterthought while making speedy vehicle movement the priority. 
    • Should we continue to have separate and parallel highway and safety programs, with the safety funding significantly lower than the highway funding? Can we address the safety crisis without fundamentally reforming the highway program?
    • The INVEST Act, passed by the House last Congress, centered safety throughout the bill. Would you support centering safety throughout a transportation title instead of maintaining the status quo?
  • Poor safety design has led to disproportionate safety outcomes for communities of color, often incentivizing these communities to break the law and risk interacting with police, or put themselves in harm’s way when navigating unsafe infrastructure. How can the federal transportation program require street designs which promote safety, particularly for vulnerable road users?
  • Would you support requiring DOT to collect locations of all collisions resulting in death or serious injury, highlighting those involving cyclists and pedestrians, and produce a detailed map of an annual High Injury Network?

Transit

  • Since 1982  highways have received approximately 80 percent of surface transportation funding and transit has received approximately 20 percent. Do you and the administration believe we can meet our transportation needs, respond to the climate crisis, and connect all Americans to jobs and services by continuing the way we currently distribute federal funding for highways and transit, often referred to as the 80/20 split?
  • Do you support revisiting the 80/20 split to ensure funding goes to moving all Americans, especially our most vulnerable communities who rely on transit?
  • This pandemic, more than ever, has highlighted the importance of transit in connecting our essential communities to jobs and services. The federal government has long maintained the position to not provide operating costs for transit agencies that often serve our most vulnerable communities.  Do you support long-term federal operating support for transit agencies?

Equity

  • This pandemic, more than ever, has highlighted the importance of transit in connecting our essential communities to jobs and services. The federal government has long maintained the position to not provide operating costs for transit agencies that often serve our most vulnerable communities.  Do you support long-term federal operating support for transit agencies that connects marginalized communities to jobs and services?
  • Poor safety design has led to disproportionate safety outcomes for communities of color, often incentivizing these communities to break the law and risk interacting with police, or put themselves in harm’s way when navigating unsafe infrastructure. How can the federal transportation program require street designs which promote safety, particularly for vulnerable road users?
  • When we measure the transportation system, we look at the speed of vehicles. This ignores people without a car (disproportionately Black and brown people) out completely and it doesn’t look at a person’s whole trip — only their speed along a portion of it. Now that we can measure whole trips and all modes of travel to determine who is able to access jobs and essential services, shouldn’t this be one of our main performance measures?
  • You and the administration have acknowledged that urban highways have caused substantial harm to the economic prosperity, public health and connectivity of marginalized communities. Do you support a program to address the damage caused to Black and brown communities by urban highways and other infrastructure with funding and programs to prevent displacement?

(Atlanta before and after I-75/85)

Climate

  • A 2018 California Air Resources Board report found that, even after a ten-fold increase in the number of zero-emission vehicles, California would have to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita by 25 percent to achieve its climate goals. Should we wait for the full turnover of the fleet and hope that is enough? Or should we use every tool we have including investing in infrastructure and transportation policies that enable people to make fewer and shorter car trips?
  • The more fuel burned and the more roads built, the more money a state receives for transportation. Do you agree that this is a perverse incentive which exacerbates both congestion and climate change?
  • Traditional measures of a successful transportation system support high speed, free flowing travel. This means that a long-distance commute where a car moves very quickly would be considered more successful than a far shorter commute at a slower speed. Do you agree that designing roads with speed as the highest goal leads us to more and wider roads, more and longer trips, and more greenhouse gas emissions ?
  • How should we reform the federal transportation program to encourage efforts to shorten people’s trips and allow them to travel using carbon free modes, like walking?

Congestion

  • As you have stated, since the 1950s the federal transportation program has incentivized the construction of new highways. This has failed to solve congestion and, in fact, through a phenomenon called “induced demand” typical worsens congestion. In a recent report, Transportation for America found that while freeway capacity grew 42 percent in the largest 100 metropolitan areas, 10 percent more than population growth, congestion grew by 144 percent. In fact, congestion grew a great deal even in places that lost population.
    • How can the federal government incentivize a more effective approach, including more balanced transportation options and less carbon-intensive modes? 
    • Should the federal government require the use of accurate transportation models that include induced demand and those traveling outside a vehicle so as to understand the true benefits and tradeoffs of a project being funded with federal dollars? 

Rail

  • With the administration’s push for passenger rail investments in many underserved regions of the country, how do you plan to expand high-quality passenger rail service to more parts of the country, particularly smaller communities already suffering the loss of essential air service?
  • Do you agree that it is reasonable for rail passengers, just like airline, cruise, and any other passengers, to expect that the service will arrive and depart on time? What will you do to improve on-time performance?
  • Most intercity passenger rail serves a multi-state region, with passengers regularly traveling across state lines. Regional collaboration to support passenger rail service is only as effective as coordination between governors, state departments of transportation, and other relevant state and local officials and entities. Would you support incentivizing the creation of interstate passenger rail compacts similar to the compact that governs the Southern Rail Commission? 

The economy

  • As the recent Amazon HQ2 search highlighted, businesses want to be located in walkable, transit-connected communities. Last week, a coalition of local Chambers of Commerce wrote to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and made it clear that businesses want the federal transportation program to invest in projects that improve people’s access to jobs and services—not increase vehicle speeds. 
    • Do you agree that safer, walkable, transit-friendly communities support economic growth and business creation?
    • As a former Mayor, can you describe the economic impacts of investments in complete and safe streets?
    • What reforms to the federal transportation program will support local economic development?

They said “no new money for transportation” was a bad message. They were wrong.

Two years ago, Transportation for America bucked advocacy convention by refusing to talk about funding, discussing only the outcomes of funding instead. We even said that we do not support any new funding for transportation if the underlying policy doesn’t change. Our surprising strategy has yielded results. 

The U.S. Capitol in February 2021. Photo by Ted Eytan in the Greater and Lesser Washington Flickr pool (Creative Commons).

If insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, the converse must also be good advice: If at first you don’t succeed, try something different.

Over the last 12 years, Transportation for America (T4America) has conducted well-respected work advancing incremental reform in national transportation policy, but falling far short of transformational. In those years, T4America took a more traditional approach, advocating for more transportation funding because a piece of a larger pie of new funding could be dedicated to the things we have underinvested in—transit, biking, walking, intercity passenger rail, and smarter land-use planning. 

We believed (as most still do) that a “rising tide lifts all boats” approach is how you get invited to the table. Through this strategy, we made important progress by getting more money dedicated to alternative forms of transportation. However, with another transportation authorization approaching, we knew it was time for a different, bold, approach. 

Bucking convention, two years ago we shifted our strategy and message away from advocating for funding. Transportation policy is complex and our past platforms reflected that. This time, we sought to coalesce around two to three simple, easy-to-understand ideas that could transform the transportation system. 

In June 2019, we convened a group of partners representing communities large and small and a variety of organizations to identify three goals and associated outcomes that, together, would take the federal transportation program in a new direction. We tasked the advisory group to identify outcomes that were easy to understand, achievable and ambitious. 

We unveiled these principles in September 2019 and made a splash, especially with our announced break from the traditional approach of advocating for more funding, introduced earlier in 2019 in a widely-circulated Washington Post op-ed from T4America director Beth Osborne. The op-ed made serious waves by landing at the start of Infrastructure Week’s usual and predictable calls for more money. 

We stood out in a major way from most of the transportation advocacy community in DC, whether trade groups or nonprofits, because we were no longer willing to support more money for a broken program—even if our priorities got a little piece of the pie. These principles, re-released earlier this month, have been so potent precisely because they are indeed easy to understand, achievable and ambitious. 

The principles and outcomes are designed to rebuild crumbling infrastructure, reduce climate emissions, save lives, and equitably improve access to opportunity. They are:

  • Prioritize maintenance: Cut the road, bridge and transit maintenance backlog in half by dedicating formula highway funds to maintenance.
  • Design for safety over speed: A serious effort to reduce deaths on our roadways requires slower speeds on local and arterial roads. The federal program should require designs and approaches that put safety first.
  • Connect people to jobs and services: Don’t focus on speed. Instead determine how well the transportation system connects people to jobs and services, and prioritize the projects that will improve those connections.

And no more money for a program that will not deliver these results.

Many thought our strategy (especially opposing new funding until our priorities were addressed) would get us excused from the table, but it actually got us invited to draft a better approach. In June 2020, a little over a year after T4America started the effort, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee drafted a reauthorization proposal, the INVEST in America Act, that reflects all three principles and significantly better outcomes for decisions involving transit, highways, and balanced intercity passenger rail. Some key elements:

  • A destination access performance measure was included in the INVEST Act. This followed bipartisan legislation (the COMMUTE Act) introduced in both chambers of Congress creating a pilot program to promote access (which was included in the Senate authorization). The INVEST Act also establishes grant programs in the bill focusing transportation funding on getting people access to jobs and necessities like groceries and medical care instead of increasing vehicle speed.
  • The bill prioritizes “Complete and Context Sensitive Design” across federal spending and requires states and metro areas to consider and design for the safety of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles.
  • While the initial version of the INVEST Act made progress on prioritizing repair and maintenance, it had some loopholes. Working with leaders Rep. Chuy García of Illinois (the Future of Transportation Caucus co-chair) and Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, a bipartisan amendment  was passed to strengthen the language—and not a single member of the committee opposed it.
  • Transformative climate legislation, the GREEN Streets Act, was introduced in both chambers, and would require a vehicle miles traveled performance measure. A greenhouse gas performance measure and programs to fund electrification infrastructure were then included in the INVEST Act.  

This five-year transportation bill subsequently passed the House. The bill isn’t perfect, but it is a huge improvement over the current program. We are proud to have changed the debate and established a new standard for what national transportation policy can look like.

By taking a bold position on the long-term problems with our nation’s approach to transportation and the immediate need for change, T4America has also influenced other policy-making this spring to a degree that is far beyond the scale of the organization. For example: 

  • After we led the effort to organize support for providing public transit with emergency financial relief during the public health crisis, Congress provided an un prescedented $69.5 billion in emergency operating support ($25 billion in the CARES Act, an additional $14 billion in the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 (CRRSAA), and $30.5 billion in the American Rescue Plan). 
  • The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis legislative action plan incorporated T4America principles throughout, featured our reports, included dozens of our recommendations, and proposed language throughout the transportation section that emphasizes traffic reduction strategies that center equitable outcomes, rather than limiting itself to the inadequate strategy of electrifying the vehicle fleet.
  • Because of direct T4America engagement and pressure, the CDC revised its first COVID transportation guidance to be more transit friendly after initially releasing guidance that ignored the health impacts of discouraging transit ridership and encouraging more people to drive alone.
  • We released a policy proposal in partnership with Third Way to undo the damage in communities of color caused by urban renewal projects. T4America successfully worked to include Capital Instruction Grant’s to remove urban renewal projects in Sen. Schumer’s Economic Justice Act.

We now have a leader at USDOT singing from our hymnal. We expect a stronger Senate bill. The debate has shifted. We’re in position to win big in 2021 with your help if we continue to stand for change and not agree to bad bills just because it throws a little more money our way.

Public transit needs $39.3 billion in the next COVID package

Public transit has been decimated by the pandemic. While the December 2020 COVID package gave transit much-needed support to keep running essential service, this funding will start running out in the spring—as soon as cities and towns prepare to reopen. We urge Congress to provide at least $39.3 billion in emergency relief to prevent transit cuts through 2023. 

EDIT, February 11th: On Wednesday night, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved $30 billion in emergency relief for public transit. We thank the Committee for passing this critical funding and encourage them to provide an additional and much-needed $9.3 billion for transit in subsequent legislation.

Transit is essential to our ongoing pandemic response and our economic recovery. But it’s facing an existential crisis: without additional emergency relief, transit agencies across the country will be forced to make service cuts this spring—just when our cities and towns prepare to reopen. 

Public transit needs an additional $39.3 billion in any economic stimulus or relief legislation to preserve transit service though the rest of the pandemic and into the economic recovery. Without this funding, over 2.8 million essential workers who count on transit won’t be able to get to work. These essential workers power healthcare, grocery, sanitation, and other crucial sectors. In addition, millions of Americans—particularly people of color, who make up 60 percent of transit riders—continue to rely on public transportation as an essential connection to jobs, food, healthcare, education, and other critical services. 

Why $39.3 billion? 

Public transit has been devastated by the pandemic, with ridership losses and declining local revenue sources putting this essential service at risk of near extinction. In fact, transit agencies across the country were planning massive cuts to service and layoffs before the December COVID-19 relief package was passed; the $14 billion in relief from this package delayed these cuts, but without additional robust support, transit agencies will soon be in the same dire situation. 

An analysis by TransitCenter found that “without further assistance, some agencies will have to confront service cuts this spring, before cities begin to recover from the pandemic. Other agencies will have to contemplate cuts in the fall, undercutting a fragile economic recovery.” Compounding this financial pressure, transit agencies already face increased costs for cleaning and revenue losses due to COVID-19 that will continue long after the public health crisis is over.

Transit agencies face a projected funding shortfall of $39.3 billion through 2023, according to an independent economic analysis highlighted by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Without equivalent relief, “four in 10 agencies will have to consider additional service cuts to close their budget gaps. These cuts would come on the heels of 65 percent of transit agencies having cut service in 2020. Twenty-two percent of agencies will be forced to consider implementing additional layoffs,” according to APTA. 

The $39.3 billion ask is in line with the Biden administration’s ask for transit relief. President Biden’s American Rescue Plan calls for $20 billion in relief for transit agencies to survive through summer 2022 without service cuts, which is the size of the budget gap assessed by both APTA and TransitCenter for this year. However, the $39.3 billion goes beyond summer 2022, filling the expected budget gap through 2023. 

It’s critical that Congress provides an additional $39.3 billion for public transit in any upcoming economic stimulus or relief legislation. These funds are necessary to preserve essential transit service and support our economic recovery.   

If you represent an organization or are an elected official, please sign our letter with the Alliance for a Just Society urging Congressional transportation leaders to include $39.3 billion in emergency relief for public transit in the next COVID-19 relief package.

If you don’t represent an organization or elected official, you can still tweet to get the message out.

RELEASE: The emergency funding for transit and Amtrak is good but not enough

press release

Late Monday evening, Congress passed appropriations for fiscal year 2021 that included $908 billion in a supplemental COVID-19 relief package. Transportation for America and our partners the Alliance for a Just Society, NRDC, and U.S. PIRG released this statement:

WASHINGTON, DC: The Alliance for a Just Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), U.S. PIRG, and Transportation for America are happy to see Congress make a critical downpayment of emergency funding for public transportation in the coronavirus supplement to FY 2021 appropriations. Millions of riders—including essential workers—rely on transit to reach jobs, groceries, healthcare, COVID-19 testing centers, and soon vaccination sites. Additionally, 60 percent of transit riders are people of color. We appreciate that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognize the crucial role that transit plays in our economy and COVID-19 response. 

However, this bill’s $14 billion for transit is less than half of what transit needs to survive—and it won’t be as effective as it should be because it is being provided through a short-term, halting approach. Many transit agencies could assume that they will not receive additional relief in time to prevent devastating service cuts and layoffs when this funding runs out in a few months. Transportation costs more and works less well when funded in short-term chunks.

This bill also gives state departments of transportation $10 billion in flexible emergency relief. We encourage governors and state legislatures to work with their transportation departments to use this funding to support essential workers, improve access to work and essential services for people whether they have access to a car or not, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce the impact of the transportation system on neighboring communities, especially Black and brown communities. 

Transportation for America appreciates the $1 billion in emergency funding for Amtrak in this bill, but this too is short of the $2.5 billion Amtrak needs to survive this crisis. Passenger rail provides critical connections for rural communities and big cities alike—losing reliable Amtrak service will massively hinder our economic recovery. 

We’re glad to see lawmakers from communities large and small, blue and red recognize the importance of transit to our pandemic response and economic recovery in this relief package. And we look forward to working with Congress in the new year to secure long-term, reliable transit funding that is necessary for a robust and equitable economic recovery. 

Over 160 elected officials and organizations support fundamental changes to the federal transportation program

press release

Over 160 elected officials and organizations urge Congress to prioritize maintenance, safety over speed, and access to jobs and services in the next long-term transportation law

WASHINGTON, DC: With 169 signatures from elected officials and organizations across 39 states, Transportation for America on Thursday sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to set a vision in the next transportation reauthorization, including holding the program accountable for maintaining our transportation system, building safer streets, and connecting people to jobs and services by providing reliable transportation choices. 

“Updating long-term transportation policy is an opportunity to ensure that our economy recovers strongly and evenly,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “Our 1950s approach to transportation has led to increases in congestion, emissions, and pedestrian fatalities, and decreases in access to economic opportunity for those without access to a reliable car. It’s long past time for Congress to connect federal policy to the outcomes Americans want from their transportation system: getting where they need to go affordably, conveniently, and safely, on infrastructure that is well-maintained.” 

The current surface transportation law, the FAST Act, was extended by Congress and President Trump for one additional year and is now set to expire in September 2020. In July 2020, the House of Representatives passed the INVEST Act, a reauthorization proposal supported by Transportation for America that starts the work of updating our broken federal transportation policy. 

The letter also highlights how COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated the crisis plaguing our transportation system. Pedestrian fatalities have increased during the pandemic despite fewer cars on the road—a result of streets designed to move vehicles as fast as possible in all contexts without considering the needs of people walking, biking or using mobility-assistive devices. Over 2.8 million essential workers have been relying on transit since the pandemic’s start, but a legacy of insufficient federal funding is hindering transit agencies’ ability to provide the service riders need. It is critical that Congress uses the upcoming reauthorization as an opportunity to reverse these harmful trends and strengthen our economic recovery with smart, impactful policy. 

You can read the full letter and the list of 169 signatories here. 

Three things to know about the Senate’s FY21 appropriations for transportation

Last month, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development released a proposal for fiscal year 2021 that cuts funding for important transit and passenger rail grant programs. With only 10 days until the government runs out of funding, the clock is ticking for the House and Senate to reach an agreement on their two very different appropriations bills. 

An empty Amtrak station. Photo of Buffalo Exchange Street Station by Adam Moss on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

During this year of tumult, it came as no surprise that Congress failed to reach an agreement on fiscal year 2021 appropriations in September. With 10 days until the continuing resolution passed to keep the government open expires on December 11th, Congress needs to move quickly to reach an agreement. 

Problem: The Senate’s transportation appropriations and the House’s transportation appropriations are very different. 

Last week, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development released its dismal proposal for fiscal year 2021 appropriations. This bill provides significantly less funding than the House-passed FY21 appropriations, and it doesn’t include any supplemental emergency appropriations for COVID relief.

Here are the three most important things to know about the Senate’s transportation appropriations. 

1. No emergency relief for transit or passenger rail grant programs

COVID-19 has hit U.S. public transportation and passenger rail hard. Transit agencies are in desperate need of at least $32 billion in emergency operating relief to maintain base levels of service, and Amtrak has repeatedly requested at least $4.9 billion from Congress to avoid further cuts to jobs and service. But it’s not just operations that need a boost: transit and passenger grant programs, like the Capital Investment Grants program, need supplemental emergency funding too. There are $23 billion worth of projects in the CIG pipeline, demonstrating the demand for additional public transit across the country. 

But there’s no emergency funding for either transit or passenger rail grant programs in the Senate’s appropriations bill. The Senate has also failed to pass a separate relief bill (like the House’s HEROES Act), and are missing a chance to appropriate any emergency money—be it operating support or emergency funding for discretionary programs, as the House included in its appropriations bill—in this proposal. 

2. Capital Investment Grants program takes a beating

The Senate bill cuts funding for the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, the federal government’s primary discretionary program for new transit projects. The Senate proposes $1.889 billion, which is less than the House-proposed level of $7.175 billion—$5 billion of which is supplemental emergency funding. With COVID-19 shutdowns and the ensuing economic slowdown throwing off the financial calculus of these large infrastructure projects, this emergency funding will ensure that critical CIG projects can proceed without delay. 

3. Passenger rail funding slashed

The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program provides funding for capital projects to invest in rail infrastructure. This is the key program supporting new and expanded passenger rail service across the country. We have this program to thank for successful projects such as the upcoming return of passenger rail to the Gulf Coast. 

Yet the Senate bill undercuts the House’s proposal for this critical program, proposing $340 million where the House appropriated $500 million. In addition, the Senate bill requires that 25 percent of CRISI appropriations be reserved for rural areas. 

Robust and consistent appropriations are critical to supporting transit and rail projects across the country. As the House and Senate negotiate a final FY21 appropriations bill, we hope lawmakers remember how essential these programs are to our communities—especially as COVID-19 continues to demonstrate that essential workers, and therefore all of us, are reliant on public transit. We must invest in these systems to support our economy today, and recovery tomorrow.

It’s time to fund public transportation and highways equally

With a new Congress preparing to take office—bringing hopes of an infrastructure stimulus with them—it’s time to end an outdated agreement keeping American transportation stuck in the ‘80s: restricting public transit to only 20 percent of federal transportation funding while highways get 80 percent. Sign our petition today to tell Congress to fund them equally. 

Can you imagine what we could accomplish if transit was funded as much as highways? Photo of Metroway (bus rapid transit in Northern Virginia) by BeyondDC on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

It’s critical that Congress funds public transit and highways in the next transportation authorization, ending an outdated rule that makes it near impossible for states and local governments to deliver the high-quality public transportation Americans want. Sign our petition to urge Congress to fund transit as much as highways.

Since 1982, thanks to an agreement signed by President Reagan, spending from the federal Highway Trust Fund has followed this formula: 80 percent for highways, 20 percent for public transportation (though in reality, transit gets much less). The logic behind this was that since the Trust Fund’s funding came from the gas tax drivers pay at the pump, most of the funding should be spent on highways. 

As our colleague Emily Mangan wrote this summer, this logic no longer applies because the Highway Trust Fund hasn’t been a trust fund by any definition of that term in a long time. It hasn’t been exclusively funded by the gas tax since 2008, when it ran out of money because the gas tax was no longer sufficient to cover expenditures. To stay afloat, the trust fund received huge infusions of general taxpayer dollars totaling over $144 billion—meaning that every taxpayer is funding  transportation, whether they bought a single gallon of gas or drove a mile this year or not. 

Yet we still applied this arbitrary funding split to the influx of new transportation funds in the Recovery Act of 2009, which was sourced entirely from deficit spending from the general fund and not a single dime from gas tax user fees. Yet roughly 75 percent of the Recovery Act dollars went to roads.

The consequences of not funding transit and highways equally

Even though highways receive the overwhelming majority of federal transportation funding, they fail to solve our transportation problems on their own. In fact, this huge amount of  highway funding makes our problems—congestion, carbon emissions, dangerous roadways, reduced access to jobs and services—worse. Because there’s no rule requiring that states spend highway funding on maintenance before expansion, or any performance measures requiring that states improve people’s access to jobs and services by all modes, our highway investments wind up just increasing congestion and carbon emissions while disconnecting Americans from the daily services they need.

Guaranteeing that highways receive 80 percent of federal funding also reduces states’ and local governments’ freedom to choose for themselves what they want to build and how they want to solve their own transportation challenges. According to recent polling, voters overwhelmingly believe that their communities and the country as a whole would benefit from increased transit investment. But Congress has hampered states’ and communities’ ability to deliver this for decades by putting their thumb on the scale and incentivizing highway expansion with huge amounts of funding, making it incredibly difficult to choose a transit solution to a transportation problem.

This 80/20 split also leaves the transit infrastructure that already exists out to rot. According to the American Public Transportation Association, addressing the backlog of deferred transit maintenance backlog would cost $90 billion—or just two years of highway funding.

It doesn’t have to be this way. If Congress were to end the arbitrary 80/20 split and fund transit and highways equally, we could fix our aging public transportation infrastructure and provide the frequent and reliable service necessary to connect people to jobs and services. With more transit funding, states would be incentivized to make roadway investments that accommodate transit, not compete with it, such as investments in complete streets and land-use changes that make it safe and easy to bike and walk and therefore to access transit. 

Meaningful and consistent investment in public transportation is critical to reducing our carbon emissions, improving public health, dismantling barriers to opportunity—especially those faced by people of color—and supporting our economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. It’s time for Congress to free states and local governments from this arbitrary 80-20 split in transportation funding and let them invest in transit.

Congressional leadership and junior members offer hope

There are numerous elected officials in Congress who understand the power of transportation policy to strengthen our economy, save lives, dismantle barriers to opportunity, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. From the innovative Future of Transportation Caucus, to leaders like Rep. Peter DeFazio, and to bipartisan members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the incoming Congress has a real shot at reforming transportation policy to work for all Americans—regardless of if they drive or not. 

The House of Representatives has a great jumping off point with the INVEST Act, a bill they passed this summer, that starts to finally connect transportation funding to the outcomes Americans want. Instead of pumping more general funds into the existing program, the bill employs performance measures and requirements to align funds with our goals: reducing our enormous backlog of roadway maintenance, decreasing congestion and carbon emissions, and making our streets safe for all road users. We strongly urge the incoming House of Representatives to pick up this bill again—and fund transit and highways equally this time. 

To kick off that effort, next month Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (a founding co-chair of the Future of Transportation Caucus) will introduce a resolution to the House of Representatives urging members to support funding transit and highways equally in the next surface transportation authorization. A resolution like this would have been unthinkable just three years ago—a real testament to the changing attitudes towards transportation policy. 

Tell Congress: it’s time to end the 80-20 split

With federal transportation policy up for reauthorization this year and hopes for an infrastructure stimulus hitting the floors of Congress running high, now is the time for our elected leaders to solve our transportation problems and fund transit and highways equally. Sign our petition to urge Congress to end the 80/20 split and fund transit and highways equally.

SIGN THE PETITION

How transit agencies are keeping workers and riders safe

As we slowly settle into a new normal, transit agencies across the country are making big changes to their operations to keep employees and riders safe. We checked in with our transit agency members across the country to see how they’re adapting to COVID-19 and what they need to keep going. 

Join us on Twitter all-day tomorrow (Thursday, September 17) for a #SaveTransit Tweet Storm. Tweet at your member of Congress to #SaveTransit using our social media toolkit, and send an email to your members using our action page.

A transit rider wearing a mask on the Washington, DC Metro. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

It’s been almost six months since COVID-19 radically altered our lives, and public transportation remains both vital and in a major crisis. The pandemic has shattered transit agencies’ funding sources, with necessary shutdowns and social distancing measures depleting revenue from fares and sales taxes. 

It was already a perpetual challenge for agencies to keep trains and buses operating in pre-pandemic times, thanks to limited federal funding and a national transportation program that prioritizes driving over all other modes. But the added (and costly) challenge of keeping transit employees and riders safe from contracting COVID-19 has made operating transit safely and efficiently even more challenging. Transit agencies across the country are announcing major cuts to service, a consequence of plummeting revenues. 

Transit agencies have a vital role in connecting people to jobs, healthcare, grocery stores and other essential services. Here’s what Transportation for America’s transit members are doing to keep employees and riders safe and connected to the things they need—and what will happen if the transit industry doesn’t receive at least $32 billion in emergency relief from the federal government. 

Innovating on the fly

With limited federal guidance, transit agencies across the country often acted on their own to implement COVID-19 safety measures. Many transit agencies decided to suspend fare collection to reduce contact between riders and bus operators, and only allow rear-door bus boarding and install plexiglass shields at bus operators’ seats for the same reason. 

Both Mountain Line (Missoula, MT) and DART (Des Moines, IA) began running “plug buses”—running two buses in tandem—to provide riders with more space to social distance on buses. Mountain Line, Pierce Transit (Tacoma, WA), and the Sacramento Regional Transit District also parked some of their buses to create community WiFi hotspots, providing another service essential to weathering the COVID-19 crisis, especially for students lacking internet service at home to continue their studies remotely. 

Spending more than ever

Most transit agencies are spending more than they ever have on cleaning transit vehicles and personal protective equipment to keep their employees safe. Pierce Transit hired temporary employees to increase sanitizing buses. King County Metro (Seattle, WA) committed to cleaning buses every night, with special attention paid to ensuring the safety of cleaning staff. Most transit agencies acquired sanitizing wipes, hand sanitizer, and washable masks for employees—but struggled with procuring these essential items in the early days of the pandemic. 

Cleaning isn’t the only category increasing costs—many transit agencies are giving employees more paid leave to ensure the health of themselves and their families. DART found that many of its bus operators fall into high-risk health categories, causing the agency to increase leave for high-risk employees and employees dealing with childcare issues as a result of school closures. Pierce Transit also allowed high-risk employees to take four to five weeks of leave, and took advantage of the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act to provide employees with an additional 80 hours of paid leave for childcare. That’s good for employees, but it has also left some agencies without enough workers to provide essential service.

Without federal emergency relief, transit can’t go on

The double whammy of increased costs and decreasing revenue is slamming transit agencies—to the point where if they don’t receive emergency relief soon, they’ll have to drastically reduce service (or even cease to exist). While March’s CARES Act provided some relief ($25 billion in operating support), the financial hole public transportation is falling into has gotten much, much larger—at least $32 billion. 

Transit agencies across the country are calling for at least $32 billion in emergency relief from the federal government, but Congress isn’t listening. Senate Republicans’ most recent COVID-19 relief proposal didn’t include any emergency funding for transit, and the House Democrats HEROES Act provided less than half of what transit needs. And both chambers of Congress are no closer to reaching any agreement whatsoever on a desperately needed relief package to provide support for transit, unemployment, the Payroll Protection Program, or other critical mechanisms for supporting Americans during this economic crisis.

Without transit, millions of people across the country will lose access to essential jobs, healthcare, and grocery stores—in the middle of a major, deadly pandemic. Losing transit service also erodes the prospect of any long-term economic recovery, with limited and infrequent transit service unable to connect people to opportunities and essential services they need. 

Congress must include at least $32 billion in emergency operating relief for public transportation in the next COVID-19 relief bill, or leave your constituents stranded. 

Tell Congress that they needed to pass emergency relief for transit yesterday. Email your members of Congress using our action page and tweet at your Congressional delegation to #SaveTransit using our social media toolkit.

A bipartisan transportation bill isn’t always good: but it can be

Last summer, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a transportation bill lauded by both sides of the aisle. While the bill was indeed bipartisan, it does great damage to the priorities of both the Democrats and Republicans. Our director Beth Osborne explains why bipartisanship on its own doesn’t make a bill good, and how it’s possible to create a transportation bill that achieves both parties’ objectives.

“Blue Skies over the Capitol.” Photo by John Brighenti on Flickr’s Creative Commons

Transportation is the only sector where Democrats and Republicans enthusiastically and bipartisanly agree to undermine their own goals. While Republicans say their priority is to reduce demand for federal spending, avoid wasteful spending and efficiently move goods to market, the current program and the bill they passed fails to do so. While Democrats claim to want to create jobs, reduce emissions, and build a strong and fair economy, the current program and the bill they passed fails to do so. Still these laws have achieved one thing: bipartisanship.

It’s amazing that lawmakers can fail to achieve both parties’ goals in one bipartisan bill. It is obvious why in these divided times, members of Congress would seek and embrace an opportunity for bipartisanship. But is bipartisanship good if it is accomplished by trading so many of your priorities—your reasons for being in office—for an agreement that just makes our country’s problems worse?

In fairness, there are successes both sides can point to. The Democrats can say they are creating jobs even if they aren’t creating as many as they could. The Republicans can say they are reducing regulation even if they are only reducing some parts of the environmental review and permitting processes (and not always the most onerous parts). Both can say they are fixing our crumbling infrastructure even if there is no requirement to do so—which is why that federal funding is often spent on road expansions (that we can’t afford to maintain) instead.

Why is this? First, unlike most other federal programs, lawmakers don’t have to justify funding the transportation program annually because it’s paid for by a trust fund. Money moves out to states, metropolitan planning organizations and transit agencies every year whether the annual spending bills are passed or not. When you don’t have to think about a program but every six or so years, it is hardly surprising that most members of Congress don’t fully understand how it works or what might need to change.

Second, passing these bills leads to a lot of praise from the industry that will make a lot of money from it. The press covers all the money coming home, and often little else. The eventual spending leads to ribbon cuttings, which provides even more good press—even if that infrastructure is fated to fall into disrepair for the same reasons we have a repair problem today.

Transportation is more complicated and nuanced than we appreciate. Building new roads and bridges doesn’t always make travel faster or more convenient—it often makes travel worse and creates hardship on the communities they touch. And investing in maintenance and transit operations actually creates more jobs than new road and bridge construction projects.

It’s time for Democrats and Republicans—and more of the press—to think about what a transportation program can and should achieve: access to jobs for rich and poor, a safe travel environment for those in and out of a car, and a well-maintained system. None of these goals are partisan. Democrats and Republicans may come to each priority for slightly different reasons, but there is a new bipartisanship that can emerge around creating a better transportation system if we just look at what we are building and not just how much we can build.

We can follow the lead of two junior members of the House—Representatives Jesús “Chuy” García (a Democrat) and Mike Gallagher (a Republican)—who are both freshmen members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. With the current transportation program expiring this September, the Committee had a chance to rethink long-term transportation policy and came up with a proposal that included a fix-it-first approach. Representatives García and Gallagher did something unusual: they considered the continuing problem in solving our transportation maintenance problems and connected policy to spending to solve that problem. The two Congressmen submitted an amendment to the reauthorization bill, called the INVEST Act, to require that states spend funding on maintenance before building new roads, which was then adopted unanimously.

Prioritizing maintenance over road expansion is a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans: Democrats reduce carbon emissions from unnecessary road building, Republicans spend taxpayer dollars responsibly by reducing our future liabilities, and both parties create more jobs—more than would be created from new road construction. This is bipartisanship to praise.

The Senate bill does not include this approach, allowing states and regions to build infrastructure they cannot afford to maintain while they are failing to maintain their existing system. But it is bipartisan! This is bipartisanship to shake your head at. The Senate needs to do better. And we all should recognize that bipartisanship can be a cover for failure to think deeply about a program and an excuse to avoid improvement.

Transit agencies, riders, unions, and members of Congress rally to save transit

Last week, a diverse group of transit stakeholders advocated for at least $32 billion in federal emergency funding for public transportation during a virtual rally. Scores of transit riders, transit agency executives, union leaders and members of Congress made it clear that transit won’t survive this crisis without help.

Transit needs your help. Here’s what you can do.

Public transit is essential and facing a financial crisis. We need to keep the pressure on Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit.

(1) Email and call your members of Congress. Your Congressional delegation needs to hear from you. Use our action page to send an email to your members of Congress, and then follow-up with a call using this script.

(2) Tweet #SaveTransit today. We’re joining with the Save Public Transit Rally organizers this Tuesday to make #SaveTransit trend. Use our social media toolkit to tweet (and tag your members of Congress) in support of at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit. 

Senate Republicans’ most recent COVID-19 relief proposal didn’t include any emergency funding for public transportation (at a time when transit is in crisis) and the House Democrats HEROES Act provided less than half of what transit needs. With budgets in freefall, transit agencies across the country are making drastic cuts to service, severing millions of people from access to essential jobs, healthcare and grocery stores—all during a deadly pandemic. These cuts erode the prospect of any long-term economic recovery, with limited and infrequent transit service unable to connect people to opportunities and essential services they need. 

That’s why transit agencies, riders, union leaders, and members of Congress came together last week to explain why transit agencies need at least $32 billion in emergency relief. 

Click through to take action to save transit.

At the Save Public Transit Rally, transit executives and riders from Chicago, Cleveland, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco joined forces with the AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Department, the Transport Workers Union, Senators Chuck Schumer (NY) and Chris Van Hollen (MD), and Representatives Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-4) and Jerry Nadler (NY-10) to resoundingly support at least $32 billion in emergency relief for public transit. The rally, available to watch in full here, was organized by Transportation for America, the Riders Alliance of New York, and Alliance for a Just Society, and co-sponsored by 39 other organizations. 

“Public transit is not an option. Public transit is a lifeline,” said Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García. “The working men and women at all transit agencies across the country roll up their sleeves and go to work everyday.  They enable the rest of our essential frontline workers to get the job done.  Now it’s our turn.” 

What made the rally especially powerful was that transit riders spoke before the leader of their transit agency and explained how critical transit is to their life. 

“I live in New Orleans. Public transit is my bread and butter,” said Judy Stevens, a New Orleans transit rider. “I’m an essential healthcare worker. I don’t own a car. I use transit to get to work, grocery, doctor appointments, all daily activities. I rely and depend on it. With cutbacks to service during COVID, riders aren’t able to social distance right now. Please Congress, listen to riders, and fully fund transit service.” 

There are thousands of essential workers and riders like Judy across the country. By choosing not to act, Congress is stranding Americans who rely on transit each day and hampering any future recovery. But it’s not too late for Congress to pass the assistance that our nation’s transit systems need to keep running through and after the pandemic.

Improving safety by making it a priority throughout the INVEST Act

As noted in our scorecard, the House’s INVEST Act transportation bill takes important strides to make safety a priority, from the inclusion of new performance measures all the way down to making changes with how agencies set speed limits. Here are five things to know.

Here’s how Emiko Atherton, director of the National Complete Streets Coalition at Smart Growth America, described the INVEST Act in our statement from June 3rd:

“The safety of everyone using our transportation system should always have been the number one priority for the dollars that we spend, but we have utterly failed with America reaching the highest number of pedestrians struck and killed by vehicles in three decades. Thanks to the hard work of Rep. Cohen who introduced the Complete Streets Act and saw many of those ideas incorporated here, safety will once again be paramount.”

So what does the INVEST Act change when it comes to safety? Here are five important changes.

1) Incorporating a focus on safety throughout all federal programs

Safety is not a single program, and our biggest criticism of the Senate’s approach to safety last year was the same as our critique on climate change: You’ll never measurably improve safety (or climate) by creating a small add-on program when the the overall federal program’s focus on vehicle speed makes safety worse and increases emissions. That’s why the most notable changes to the bill are those that prioritize “Complete and Context Sensitive Design” across federal spending and require states and metro areas to consider and design for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, children, older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles. This will also take precedence over the current practice at most transportation agencies to plan projects around a guess at future traffic and, instead, prioritize operational performance.

The Secretary of Transportation is also charged with producing new design standards for the nation’s road system that takes context sensitive design principles into consideration, while also giving wide flexibility for local governments on design. (It should be noted that agencies already have wide flexibility to prioritize safety, though many continue to claim that the FHWA won’t “let them” do so.)

2) Overhauling a broken system that allows states to increase pedestrian deaths without penalty

States will be prevented from setting regressive targets for more people to be struck and killed by drivers while walking or biking—which are disproportionately the elderly, Black Americans and Native Americans, and people in low-income neighborhoods.  (We just can’t bring ourselves to call these targets “safety” targets when the target is for less safety.)

We have written about this issue extensively, including an addendum to Dangerous by Design that we released earlier this year. After examining state data, we found that an astonishing 18 states set targets for more non-motorized users to be killed and injured in the coming year compared to the most recent year of data reported at the time.  Let that sink in: 18 states are taking billions in federal transportation dollars, ostensibly intended to move people safely from A to B, and then planning for more people to die because of their spending decisions, and there are no penalties for doing so. States would now be required to set safety targets to improve, and if they fail to meet them, they will be required to spend more money to make their streets safer for everyone

Beyond this new requirement for the targets, states with the highest levels of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities will also be required to set aside additional funds to address those safety needs.

3) Dedicates more funding to protect the most vulnerable

The INVEST Act doubles funding for the Transportation Alternatives Program (from $850 million to an estimated $1.5 billion per year), which funds many biking and walking projects; and the bill adds new protections that will prevent states from transferring those funds to other programs unless they first make them available to local governments who could identify no suitable projects. (That’s unlikely to happen—local communities are eager for funds to make their streets safer, especially in smaller communities where the state dictates what projects to build—not the locals.)

It also allows federal dollars to be used to create plans for Complete Streets and Vision Zero—an effort to eliminate traffic fatalities. Every state will also be required to establish a safety assessment for “vulnerable users” within their road safety plan, and create an overall safe systems approach to roadway design that incorporates the likelihood of human error in order to prevent fatalities, which leads us directly to…

4) Setting speed limits to prioritize safety rather than to accommodate speeders

The legislation would also change the way that speed limits are set. Today agencies set speed limits by finding the speed where 85 percent of drivers are obeying the limit and making that the posted speed. If you build a wide street (too wide for the planned speed) and people drive too fast, the speed limit is often raised to accommodate the rule breakers. It’s time to stop bending to the needs of dangerous speeders and ignoring the safety of everyone using our roads. Speed is the number one contributor to death on our roads, and those impacts are pronounced when someone is struck while walking or biking.  Speed limits would instead be set based on a number of factors (the safe systems approach mentioned above), like crash statistics, the number of people walking & biking, and what sort of development exists around the road. The context of the street will determine the speed limit instead of how fast drivers choose to drive.

5) Changes to other parts of the bill will help prioritize safety

One of the bill’s major changes we detail in this post is a focus on access to destinations instead of vehicle speed, which is directly related to improving safety:

[To determine success, transportation agencies] measure whether or not your vehicle was moving quickly at some point of the trip. Whether or not you actually arrived isn’t measured. This metric of “success” ignores those who can’t or don’t drive, take transit, or are mobility impaired. …Vehicle speed isn’t a good measure of whether or not people can conveniently access the things they need in their daily lives.

By making access to destinations by all modes the measure of success, instead of “did your car go fast for some period of time,” we can dis-incentivize the building of big, wide roads that don’t have crosswalks and intersections and signals (those things slow down the cars!) and move toward making investments that will increase the ability of everyone to get where they need to go, regardless of how they are traveling.

Prioritizing access and starting to plan street design around the needs of today rather than magical thinking about traffic “needs” tomorrow will also contribute to improving the safety of our network overall, for everyone.

This bill could still use some improvements on safety for these changes to have their desired effects, including changing some “mays” to “shalls” and better defining context-sensitive designs in the #1 section above. But we applaud the work and leadership of Chairman DeFazio in writing a bill that puts safety front and center, and that of Rep. Cohen who introduced the Complete Streets Act of 2019 that sparked many of these changes. Federal standards and policy are just one part of this puzzle, and we will continue our important  work with cities, counties, metro areas and states to help them learn how to better plan, design, and implement safer street designs.

Amendments we’re tracking to the House transportation bill

The INVEST Act could be a turning point for the federal transportation program, almost hitting the mark on Transportation for America’s three principles for transportation investment. But a few amendments could make—or break—the bill. Stay up to date here.

The House transportation committee’s markup of the INVEST Act starts at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. Get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, visit our hub for all T4America content about the INVEST Act, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

So far well over 200 amendments have been proposed. Bookmark this page, as we’ll be posting updates to the most notable amendments we’re tracking closely. Smart Growth America is fighting for four amendments in particular to be included in the final bill:

  1. Garcia #63: An amendment that strengthens the fix-it-first provision of the bill; 
  2. Garcia #64: An amendment that increases transit funding to the same level as highways; 
  3. Garcia #65: An amendment that sheds some light on a misguided transportation metric, Level of Service; 
  4. Cohen #91: And an amendment that expands the eligibility for transit-oriented development in the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.

Tracker

Find this table on the web here in case it does not display well below. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will start consideration of this bill via a (remote) markup on Wednesday, June 17th at 10:00 a.m. Eastern. We expect the committee to take at least a day if not more to mark up the bill before they move to a final vote to advance it to the full House. We’ll be keeping this tracker updated as the markup proceeds, but stay tuned especially to @t4america on twitter for more real-time updates.

For those of you that live in a House transportation district, send a message to your rep and urge them to support the INVEST Act and to support these four amendments. If you’re not sure if your rep is on the committee, just go on over to take action and the form will let you know.

TAKE ACTION

Over 160 sign letter in support of $32 billion for transit, but the fight isn’t over

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a COVID-19 relief bill that only included $15 billion in emergency support for public transportation. That’s not nearly enough; and it’s why over 160 organizations and elected officials signed our letter in support of $32 billion for transit on short notice. But we still need you to take action.

Public transportation is on life support. Without at least $32 billion in additional emergency funding, transit agencies can’t keep their workers healthy or safely return to service when this pandemic subsides. That’s why over 160 organizations and elected officials quickly signed our letter urging Congress to pass $32 billion for transit with less than 48 hours’ notice.

But the fight isn’t yet won. Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a COVID-19 relief bill—the HEROES Act—that only includes $15 billion in emergency operating support for public transportation. That’s a start, but it’s insufficient for the scale of the crisis. We know that transit needs more, which is why we’re also calling on individuals to send a message to their members of Congress

Take action

A coalition of transit-related unions and transit agencies in New York City, San Francisco, New Jersey, and Atlanta have estimated that transit programs across the country will need an additional $32 billion through the end of 2021. In March, research group TransitCenter estimated that transit agencies would experience losses between $26-$38 billion this year due to impacts from COVID-19. Agencies are predicting losses that far outstrip the one-time emergency funding they received in March from the federal government. 

As the HEROES Act stalls on Capitol Hill, we need you to send a message to your congressional delegation: the next COVID-19 relief package must include $32 billion for transit.

If we don’t act now, millions of Americans—including millions of essential workers, such as nurses and grocery clerks—will lose access to jobs, healthcare, and other critical services. And any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to help people safely get back to work as this unprecedented crisis subsides. We can’t afford for transit to stop running, or be unable to pick up when the economy does. We need Congress to act. Send your message today!

House bill proposes $15 billion for transit. It’s not enough

Democrats in the House of Representatives only included $15 billion for transit in their next COVID-19 relief bill. That’s not enough—we need double that to ensure that transit survives this crisis.  Send a message to your congressional delegation urging them to support $32 billion for transit. 

Yesterday, Democrats in the House of Representatives released their next COVID-19 relief bill that only includes $15 billion in emergency operating support for public transportation. That’s a start, but not enough to ensure that transit agencies can keep their workers healthy and safely return to service when this pandemic subsides. We know that transit needs more. 

Take action

In March, research group TransitCenter estimated that transit agencies would experience losses between $26-$38 billion this year due to impacts from COVID-19. That range seemed huge at first, but no longer: agencies are predicting losses that far outstrip the emergency funding they received from the federal government. 

That’s why we’re asking Congress to double the amount for transit in the House bill and approve $32 billion in emergency operating support. That number is based on an estimate from a coalition of transit-related unions and the Metropolitan Transportation Association (MTA). 

We need you to send a message to your congressional delegation urging them to support $32 billion to support transit through the end of 2021. 

Are you an elected official? Or do you represent an organization? You can also sign our coalition letter to Congressional leadership. We are sending this letter this Friday before the House votes, so time is of the essence if your organization wants to join this letter.

If we don’t act now, millions of Americans—including millions of essential workers, such as nurses and grocery clerks—will lose access to jobs, healthcare, and other critical services. And any long-term economic recovery will be nearly impossible without transit service to help people safely get back to work as this unprecedented crisis subsides. 

We give $40 billion to states every year to build highways. In this moment of extraordinary need, transit requires $32 billion to keep running through 2021. That’s an investment well worth making.

We can’t afford for transit to stop running, or be unable to pick up when the economy does. We need Congress to act, but time is short. Send your message today!