Skip to main content

Tag: COVID-19

Transit adaptability during the COVID-19 pandemic

Blue Pittsburgh bus

Transit agencies across the United States have struggled with decreased ridership, safety hazards, and low morale as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet some have responded by changing their approach to better serve everyday riders, make transit free or more affordable, and rethink what the future of transit should look like to reduce emissions and provide access for those who need it most.

Blue Pittsburgh bus
Port Authority of Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) buses. Flickr photo by Can Pac Swire.

This post was written by Devin Willis, program associate at Smart Growth America. It is the fourth of a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here. Some of the agencies profiled in this piece were interviewed with support from the Kresge Foundation. 

This series has explored how public transit is an essential part of mitigating climate change by reducing emissions. Connecting more people to their everyday destinations via public transit offers a way to cut back on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and transportation emissions. 

We’ve been writing this series against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has presented unprecedented challenges for transit agencies and the millions of riders they serve. Transit providers all over the country are struggling with revenue loss due to the massive ridership drop in 2020, service cuts, driver shortages and illness, vaccine skepticism, and low morale. Although the funds for transit in the 2021 infrastructure bill will help, those funds can’t help fund operations for most transit agencies or undo the damage caused by the pandemic. (The American Rescue Plan, passed during the pandemic, does specifically provide emergency operations support for transit agencies.) 

This is a slight detour from our series about the potential of reducing emissions with more transit, but we wanted to profile a few transit agencies that shifted their approach during this historic pandemic to provide better access for their riders and rethink the future of transit in their communities—both of which are stepping stones to more significant improvements that can help reduce emissions.

Richmond, VA preserved ridership levels with fare-free transit and a past network redesign

Sheltered Richmond bus stop by a bus only lane
GRTC bus rapid transit. Flickr photo by BeyondDC.

Unlike many transit agencies nationwide, Richmond’s public transit only suffered a relatively modest drop in ridership, and has already recovered local bus ridership to pre-pandemic levels. This is likely due in part to a handful of bold actions on the part of the city government and the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC). GRTC CEO Julie Timm, hired just six months before the pandemic, attributes their success to three main steps taken:

1) The strength of the 2018 network redesign connecting essential workers to jobs; 2) the extensive COVID protective measures enacted early and throughout the pandemic to protect staff and riders; and 3) the ongoing commitment to Zero Fare operations to protect the health and financial stability of our riders. GRTC’s focus on connecting people to essential resources resulted in higher sustained ridership.

As Timm notes, before the pandemic in 2018, GRTC implemented a significant redesign of its bus routes to improve access and produce faster, more consistent service. Their redesign includes new route names and numbers (routes are now named after major roads that are well known to locals like Hull Street), increased bus frequency, and easier connections. This service redesign successfully produced an increase in ridership every month between June 2018 and February 2020, reaching a full 29 percent increase over that time period and providing a solid foundation to build upon during the difficulties of the pandemic.

The most notable change that GRTC made during the pandemic was the decision by the GRTC and Mayor Levar Stoney in March of 2020 to suspend all fare collection from bus riders. In Richmond, the majority of the bus service ridership and revenue comes from the often economically distressed households of essential and low-income riders. This shift to 100 percent free transit spared many families and workers from having to choose between their bus fare and other needs like food, medicine, and employment access.

While Richmond was not the only city to introduce fare-free policies during the pandemic, GRTC is among the more successful cities to do so, effectively preserving the city’s bus ridership and maintaining the zero fare policy longer term. And two years later, GRTC is continuing to offer fare-free transit while most other cities that did so have since returned to their previous fare policies. The GRTC was awarded $8 million in state grant funding from the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to continue experimenting with the effects of zero fare policy over the next three years through June of 2025. The City of Richmond and Virginia Commonwealth University have agreed to match this funding in support of the zero fare policy and its positive effect on bus riders.

Atlanta, GA looks to restructure service to respond to changing needs

MARTA buses in Atlanta. Flickr photo by James Williamor.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Agency (MARTA) had approximately 110 bus routes with over four million passengers per month. In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic MARTA, like many other US transit agencies, watched ridership crater. And in the intervening two years of the pandemic, they have struggled to bring their ridership back to pre-pandemic levels. At present, MARTA’s ridership is approximately 65 percent of pre-pandemic levels. 

Similar to Richmond’s 2018 redesign but taking place during the pandemic, MARTA launched a major initiative to restructure bus service as a response to the pandemic and to better address the needs of residents. MARTA is currently leading a major online and in-person community engagement effort, soliciting feedback and ideas regarding new potential bus routes and service types. MARTA is posing key questions to its riders directly about the tradeoffs between service frequency and breadth of coverage directly: do riders want to see fewer routes with more reliable, frequent service between highly-trafficked areas (similar to the changes Richmond made, as well as Columbus and Houston) or more routes in more neighborhoods but less convenient service on those routes? Following the engagement, the proposed redesign concept will be released in the spring of 2022.

In addition to the bus network redesign, MARTA has also begun to experiment with mobile ticketing and fare collection to ensure the wellbeing of transit operators and riders. The agency added a mobile ticketing system in order to make transit use more contactless and limit the spread of coronavirus. MARTA hopes to make these changes permanent.

Pittsburgh, PA reroutes buses to better serve low-income riders

Pittsburgh’s Port Authority of Allegheny County lost 80 percent of its ridership during the coronavirus pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the Port Authority’s transit network was historically focused on connecting suburban commuters to downtown Pittsburgh from residential and suburban areas in the surrounding region. When the pandemic hit and many of those office jobs switched temporarily or permanently to remote work, this type of commuter ridership dried up almost completely. 

Like many other transit agencies, the pandemic spurred the Port Authority to reconsider how best to serve its lower-income passengers who rely on public transportation and may not have other options. Pittsburgh increased bus and rail frequency for 37 percent of the neighborhoods within its service area. This is part of a larger shift away from commuter routes and toward providing more service in low-income neighborhoods. Pittsburgh’s transit agency has also added more off-peak and weekend hours to accommodate riders who do not work on a 9-to-5 schedule. 

The Port Authority also implemented changes in the fare system to encourage different types of riders to use the bus system. They recently introduced a modest fare proposal that would restructure the bus fare pass from a calendar-based weekly and monthly pass system to a more flexible 7- and 31-day pass system. This move is a good first step as it removes the bus pass from the commuter-centric five-day week and allows the bus system to better serve non-commuters such as persons traveling on the weekend or outside of rush hours. Locals have pushed for even more significant changes, including fare-free service or a similar policy. One proposal recommends that fares be limited for low-income passengers who are SNAP/EBT beneficiaries.

What’s next

The steps these agencies have taken are examples of what other agencies can do to increase ridership and safety in the pandemic. While the challenges faced by transit agencies during the COVID-19 crisis are very real and there are not easy solutions, the agencies profiled here were able to respond to the changing needs that they observed, focusing on providing access for those who need it most, potentially reducing emissions in the process by improving access and ridership. This type of responsive, nimble approach to transportation infrastructure will help make transit a viable alternative to driving and will help us reach our climate goals.

Senate takes aim at essential transit relief dollars to cover the cost of their infrastructure bill

woman in MTA subway carriage cleaning the ceiling
Image Source: Flickr/ MTA NYC

With the bipartisan infrastructure framework legislative text nearing a vote, unused transit COVID relief dollars have become a target for scrounging together enough money to pay for that deal’s cost. Our communities still need these funds—here’s why:

Most of the United States shut down last March 2020, as stay at home orders were enacted and many people were placed in remote work and school arrangements. However, our essential workers, including transit operators, continued to work on the frontlines. The CARES Act, Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act, and the American Rescue Plan provided vital funding to keep transit agencies and their communities moving. While overall ridership numbers drastically decreased, transit agencies continued to transport the essential workers who never stopped serving their communities every day through the pandemic. As our nation moves towards recovery, even amid growing concerns around the COVID-19 Delta variant, transit agencies will continue to need these funds to fully recover.

It will take a few years before transit ridership returns to pre-COVID levels. That is exactly why Congress allowed the American Rescue Plan’s transit relief funds to be available until 2024. While some agencies have fully exhausted all their relief funding, others have made plans to draw down those funds over time to avoid financial disaster. Taking this money away from transit agencies now, with so many political and public health unknowns, will put many of those agencies right back on the fiscal cliff Congress sought to avoid at the beginning of the year.

Here is what some transit agencies have spent their COVID money on:

Some transit agencies had the ability or need to fully utilize all of their COVID relief dollars while others have used different strategies to recover from stay at home orders. Why is that? Every transit agency’s financial flexibility is different. Many agencies pay for much of their operating costs through a combination of state and local taxes and fares. Many transit agencies moved to a fare free system in order to make drivers and operators safer by reducing interaction with riders. This decision to protect the public health of operators and riders had a strong impact on revenue. In addition, some parts of the country were hit harder than others by the economic downturn, greatly impacting the amount of taxes collected. Smaller agencies and larger agencies typically don’t depend on fare revenues to the same degree. 

The labor market for transit agencies has also been severely impacted by the pandemic. The ability to train and hire new operators while implementing social distancing guidance has become a challenge while traditional retirements and attrition rates continue. If Congress were to pull these funds, it would put an even greater strain on transit agencies’ ability to recruit and retain operators and staff—right at the time when ridership is going to start picking up once again.

Investment in transit is investment in people, our communities, and our economy. COVID relief dollars have been and continue to be a lifeline to transit agencies that serve our communities and will drive economic growth through recovery. Yanking those relief dollars at this juncture would be pulling the rug out from under these agencies, driving their operations to ruin, deteriorating and cutting mobility for millions of Americans, and stymying the recovery of many communities reliant on public transit.

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?

Congress to pass billions in much-needed relief for public transit and Amtrak

Today, Congress will take a big step towards recovering the United States’ essential public transit and passenger rail network from the pandemic with a $1.9 trillion stimulus package. The bill—soon to be voted on in the House and signed into law by President Biden—includes $30.5 billion in emergency relief for public transit and $1.7 billion for Amtrak. 

Riders waiting to board a MARC train at Baltimore’s Penn Station. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

We’ve been researching, organizing, blogging, tweeting, meeting, rallying, advising, and even meme-ing about it for a year now: COVID-19 has thrown public transportation and passenger rail into crisis. 

With revenue from fares and taxes declining, the operating budgets of these essential public goods have been running on fumes. The threat of permanent service cuts grows ever more serious by the day—despite the fact that public transit has been essential to our pandemic response. Limited funding even forced some transit agencies to consider service cuts as soon as this spring, mere months after the last infusion of emergency relief was passed in December. 

Today, the House of Representatives will pass much-needed emergency funding that greatly reduces the threat of service cuts. The bill, known as the American Rescue Plan Act, includes $30.5 billion for public transit and $1.7 billion for Amtrak. 

“Public transportation and passenger rail are essential to every aspect of American life. We’re thrilled that Congress understands this and is legislating accordingly,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “The American Rescue Plan means that cities and towns will not reopen without transit and rail operating, and ensures that essential workers and riders counting on transit to reach jobs, healthcare, groceries, and other services throughout the pandemic will have these vital connections.”

The emergency funding for public transit includes much-needed operating funds and emergency funding for Capital Investment Grants (CIG), the main transit construction program. Senators increased the amount of funding House legislators provided for CIG by $250 million. 

We consider the $30.5 billion for transit as a significant down payment towards the $39.3 billion in emergency assistance required to truly secure public transit from this crisis. The American Public Transportation Association found in an independent economic analysis that $39.3 billion is the amount needed to avoid service cuts and layoffs through summer 2023. The $30 billion provided in the American Rescue Plan will prevent cuts through 2022. We urge Congress to pass an additional $9.3 billion for transit in subsequent legislation. 

But public transportation needs more than emergency funding to charge an equitable and sustainable economic recovery from COVID-19. Investment in public transit has long been undermined by a federal transportation program that overwhelmingly funds new and wider highways, limiting the impact of transit investments and the amount of funding transit even receives. 

With the light finally at the end of our pandemic tunnel, and with long-term federal transportation policy expiring this year, it’s time for Congress to make public transit and passenger rail a cornerstone of our transportation program: not an afterthought that only receives 20 percent of federal funds. 

House-passed COVID relief bill increases emergency funding for transit construction grants

Local governments’ budgets have been decimated by the pandemic. Yet the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program—the main federal program for funding new transit construction—counts on project sponsors matching federal funds with local funds. To keep transit projects moving, the House approved increased emergency funding for over 24 CIG projects from Arizona to New York in the upcoming COVID-19 relief package. 

Phoenix, AZ’s Valley Metro’s South Central Extension/Downtown Hub—a CIG project that would receive this emergency funding. Photo courtesy of Valley Metro.

Capital Investment Grants (CIG)—composed of the New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity programs—is the federal government’s main program for constructing new and expanded transit projects. Potential CIG projects go through multiple rounds of review by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), where they are rated on cost-effectiveness, environmental benefits, land use, congestion relief, and mobility improvements. 

Most other transportation grant programs require a 20 percent local match, whereas current law prohibits any CIG project where the local match is below 50 percent, as we wrote in our report The Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation. In normal times, this places a much higher burden on local and state governments that wish to build or expand public transit. COVID-19 has worsened this burden while also threatening local communities existing commitments. 

Due to COVID-19, local governments’ revenue is significantly down, with tax receipts declining with the economy. As a result, project sponsors are having a much harder time raising funds for the local CIG match. This threatens the viability of existing projects, potentially leading to delays, cost increases and the extreme outcome of cancelling projects. The recent action by the FTA helps, but the CIG program needs emergency funding to support local communities and keep projects moving. 

We are thrilled that the House Budget Committee added an additional $425 million to the $1 billion in emergency funding for CIG included in the first version of the latest COVID relief bill (the American Rescue Plan Act). They will go a long way towards keeping projects moving through the CIG pipeline—at a time when we need frequent and affordable transit more than ever. 

This additional emergency funding for CIG was part of the COVID bill approved by the House this past Friday, which now heads to the Senate. This bill also includes $30 billion in emergency funding for transit agencies, which is needed to ensure that transit can continue to connect Americans to jobs and essential services—because if you have no money to run the system, building new transit is pointless. 

The original bill approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provided $1 billion for CIG projects that have negotiated full funding grant agreement (FFGAs) in fiscal year 2019 or 2020 but are not yet open for revenue service. These funds were to increase the projects’ non-federal match, as a result of project sponsors facing significantly reduced revenues due to COVID. 

The additional $425 million, added to the bill by the House Budget Committee, will be allocated in two ways:

  • $250 million to increase the amount given to each project funded by the base bill
  • $175 million for projects that received their most recent CIG funding in fiscal year 2018 but are not yet open for revenue service. 

Yet more needs to be done to support the demand for new and expanded public transit.

As described in The Green New Deal for City and Suburban Transportation, Transportation for America recommends replacing the CIG program with two programs: A $6 billion/year formula expansion program, and a $6 billion/year discretionary grant program for capital projects that improve access to frequent transit for low-income people, both requiring a 20 percent local share. 

These investments—along with investments in transit operations, maintenance, and electrification—can be possible if Congress provides transit with the same amount of funding as highways. To truly support public transit, the federal transportation program must be re-oriented towards investments in transit that substantially improve people’s access to jobs and services. 

With Congress writing long-term transportation policy now, we need your help to push for fundamental reforming the federal transportation program. Sign up for our Month of Action—kicking off today, Tuesday, March 2—to take one small action every week to influence this important legislation.

The CDC needs to do more to show the public that transit is safe

Public transit is one of the safest indoor spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic for a plethora of reasons. But the perception of transit’s safety is lagging. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a lot of power to change the narrative and pursue vaccination sites that are transit-accessible, as we wrote in a joint letter to the agency with our partners. 

New York MTA’s Mask Force distributing free masks to subway riders. Photo courtesy of the MTA.

Public transit is incredibly important to our pandemic response, connecting riders and essential workers to jobs, groceries, healthcare and more—safely. With proper precautions such as wearing a mask, transit is one of the safest indoor spaces for COVID-19 transmission, with a plethora of studies failing to link disease spread to transit. 

Why is transit so safe? Buses and trains are highly-ventilated; riders must wear masks (thanks to a new requirement from the CDC); vehicles are cleaned frequently; and riders tend to spend a short amount of time on vehicles and in stations. 

But the CDC isn’t clearly communicating transit’s safety to the public. In fact, last summer the CDC actively encouraged Americans to avoid transit—guidance they updated after criticism from Transportation for America and our partners.

While we’re grateful that the CDC updated this guidance and last month instituted a mask requirement on transit and other forms of transportation, the CDC needs to do more. CDC guidance that does not make it clear that transit is safe undermines public confidence in this essential service and ultimately undermines our communities today and our recovery tomorrow. 

We urged the new CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, to communicate transit’s safety in a new letter written by Transportation for America and signed by our partners the Transport Workers Union, TransitCenter, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). You can read the full letter here. 

It is also critical that the CDC considers transit access as a determining factor in choosing vaccination locations, and to provide guidance to states to ensure no one is denied access to a vaccine. As we wrote in our letter, no one should be denied access to a vaccine because they do not have access to a car. Public transit can and must play an important role in providing Americans with safe, convenient, and equitable transportation to vaccination appointments. 

We urge the CDC to clearly communicate how safe transit is to the public, and make transit access a factor in determining vaccination sites. Americans need transit—the CDC shouldn’t undermine it.

Release: Over 100 elected officials, cities, and organizations support $39.3 billion for transit

press release

Over 100 elected officials, cities and organizations urge Congress to provide $39.3 billion in emergency funding for public transportation to preserve transit service through 2023

WASHINGTON, DC: With only three days’ notice, over 100 elected officials, cities and organizations signed a letter written by Transportation for America (T4America) and the Alliance for a Just Society (AJS) urging Congress to provide transit agencies with $39.3 billion in emergency funding over three years. This critical funding will allow transit agencies to avoid service cuts through 2023, ensuring that public transit will survive the pandemic and continue to provide safe and reliable access to jobs, schools, and services for millions of Americans. 

Public transit has been devastated by the pandemic, with ridership losses and declining local revenue sources putting this essential service at risk. Without federal emergency relief, many transit agencies and paratransit service providers will be forced to dramatically reduce or eliminate critical service as soon as this spring, as found in an analysis by TransitCenter.

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. 

Last night, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved additional COVID-19 relief including $30 billion for public transit. This funding is a huge step towards helping transit agencies survive this crisis and continue powering our economic recovery. The additional and much-needed $9.3 billion can be provided in subsequent legislation. 

Read the full letter here. For requests to interview Transportation for America Director Beth Osborne or Policy Director Scott Goldstein, please contact Jenna Fortunati at jenna.fortunati@t4america.org.

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.

COVID-19 threw a curveball at curb management. Here’s how cities adapted.

Transportation for America’s 2020 cohort of the Smart Cities Collaborative was always meant to focus on curbside management. But then came COVID-19, radically shifting all aspects of our lives—including how we use curbs. Our new report, COVID and the Curb, explores how cities adapted their curb management strategies to support public health and small businesses, and ideas for better curb policy at the local, state, and federal levels. 

A Shared Spaces street in San Francisco, organized by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

The following blog is adapted from our new report, COVID and The Curb. Read the full report—chock full of in-depth case studies—here.

Over the past few years, demands for curb space have skyrocketed. No longer just for personal car parking, curbs are where people board buses or streetcars; access app-based shared bicycles, scooters, or cars; and host block parties or parklets. Businesses send out and pick up deliveries at the curb, and unhoused community members, often without other options, use curbs as temporary living spaces.

In 2020, the curb was used for all those purposes and more. Local governments got creative to align curbside management with COVID-19 response efforts—at the same time the pandemic was accelerating some of the changing uses of and growing demand on the curb already underway. 

Click the image to read the full report.

Across the country, a number of cities reprogrammed curb and street space for retail, outdoor dining, and active transportation; working with communities to design curb pilots; and setting up temporary transit lanes and COVID-19 testing sites. Due to the urgent nature of the crisis, cities developed new approaches to a number of challenges (many rooted in issues that existed far before COVID-19) that should be revisited post-pandemic. We explored many of these new approaches in our new report, COVID and the Curb. 

The challenge to adapt curbside management to COVID-19 raised a host of questions for cities. How do you balance equitable community engagement with pressure to provide quick solutions? How do you revise permitting processes—like for outdoor dining—to be less arduous and more equitable? How do you clearly communicate new regulations and processes as they’re being changed and implemented?

These questions were made all the more significant because of the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on certain communities, particularly Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color. In response, cities across the country piloted new solutions, swapped use cases with peers, stayed as nimble as possible, and reassessed how government assets could better and more equitably serve the public during this crisis.

Here’s what some cities did: 

  • The City of Boston waived and reduced outdoor dining permit requirements, which previously involved surveyed and engineered design drawings, a public hearing, multi-departmental permitting, and fees. The majority of these requirements were either waived or reduced, and the review and approval process was expedited to take a matter of weeks, rather than months.
  • In Ann Arbor, city staff developed a “parking space repurposing” program to allow 40 restaurants to use the on-street parking spaces in front of their properties for extended patio space at no cost to businesses. 
  • In San Francisco, as traffic started to slowly return after the initial lockdown, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) set up temporary transit lanes to ensure “that essential workers and transit-dependent San Franciscans do not bear the costs of traffic congestion.” By devoting lanes solely for buses, SFMTA reduced the amount of time buses spend in traffic, protecting public health by reducing riders’ travel time and hence their potential exposure to COVID-19.
  • …and more case studies featured in COVID and the Curb. 

Looking to the future of curb space

With residents, elected officials, and small business owners paying closer attention to the curb and how it can be strategically leveraged for the public’s benefit, cities now have a unique opportunity to shift management of their curbs in a way that’s equitable, flexible and innovative. Cities can set up curb guidelines to prioritize curb uses, ensure curb signage is understandable and accessible,  and address inequitable curb enforcement—and much, much more. 

While curb management largely occurs at the local level, there are a handful of policy actions states and the federal government can take to support local governments’ ability to efficiently and equitably manage their curb. For example, providing additional regulatory oversight on delivery vehicles and TNCs, and requiring data sharing between private operators and cities. 

Go deeper in these case studies and  policy ideas in our new report, COVID and the Curb. 

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. 

What service cuts are transit agencies facing around the country?

Public transit agencies are approaching an unprecedented funding crisis. To get a better sense of the magnitude of that crisis, we conducted a scan of media coverage about transit budget shortfalls and service cuts during the pandemic. The results paint a clear picture: most major transit agencies have either already been forced to cut service or are anticipating significant cuts on the horizon without emergency funding support for Congress. 

Voters sent a strong message by passing the majority of transit initiatives on the ballot on November 3—including some larger funding initiatives to expand transit service like Austin’s Project Connect. Americans want to see transit survive the COVID-19 economic downturn, know transit will be a critical part of economic recovery, and are willing to step up to help make that happen. 

Unfortunately, that local commitment won’t be enough without emergency funding to get transit agencies through the immediate crisis. Transit agencies need at least $32 billion in emergency federal funding for transit operations—funding that a stimulus bill could provide—but Congress has so far failed to act since its initial assistance in the CARES Act in March. 

We’ve heard from transit agency executives, riders, union leaders, researchers, and others and the takeaway is clear: there will be no economic recovery without transit, and transit won’t survive this crisis without help from federal policymakers. Service cuts will have devastating impacts on millions of people who rely on transit everyday to reach jobs, medical care, groceries, and services, and the burden of these transit cuts would fall overwhelmingly on people of color. 

But just how severe is the looming crisis many agencies are facing? T4America surveyed recent media coverage of agencies’ financial outlooks and potential service cuts and found that most major transit agencies have either already cut service substantially or are expecting significant cuts on the horizon without emergency assistance. And while smaller transit agencies aren’t necessarily getting the same media attention, we know many rural agencies are facing their own catastrophic cuts. 

A wave of service cuts on the horizon

While the CARES Act provided much-needed temporary support to transit, it was never intended to be a permanent fix or provide sustained funding—and those funds are about to run out for many agencies that are already struggling. We have compiled a list of some of the major pending cuts below:

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) will run out of its CARES Act funding next month. Director of Transportation Jeff Tumlin recently called attention to the agency’s $148 million operating loss.  

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in the DC region will also run out of its CARES funds by the end of 2020. Without additional federal support, WMATA may need to make approximately $200 million worth of cuts through service changes and layoffs beginning in December—and today announced devastating future service cuts, including the complete elimination of weekend service and the closure of 19 stations.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York City has been outspoken in warning that it could be forced to cut service by as much as 40 percent without more emergency funding. A recent study found service cuts in NYC could lead to the loss of 450,000 jobs.

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) in Philadelphia will see its CARES funding run out in 2021. These cuts could have devastating economic impacts. A recent study found that SEPTA stimulated more than $3 billion in economic activity across the state last year, and has issued about 19,000 contracts worth more than $1.3 billion to companies in 38 of the state’s 67 counties since 2015. SEPTA General Manager Leslie Richards said it well: “We need to be up and running. If we are not functioning, the recovery of our area and the recovery across the state will be slowed.”

Boston area officials have begun planning for possible service cuts in response to a forecasted $300-$600 million shortfall for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021, when Boston’s CARES Act funds are set to run out. The T could eliminate all ferry service, reduce bus service and stop commuter rail service on weekends as a result of that shortfall.

The Maryland Transportation Administration is reducing service on its MARC commuter trains and buses for the Washington DC and Baltimore areas. This is a change of plans after the state saw significant backlash in response to an initial proposal to cut Baltimore city bus service instead. 

The Denver region’s transit agency, the Regional Transit District (RTD), has discussed the elimination of up to 550 positions to balance its 2021 budget, facing a $215 million deficit next year once its CARES Act funds run out. Earlier this year, RTD cut back its daily service to 60 percent of pre-COVID levels, and the agency expects to run reduced service for the foreseeable future.

The Richmond region faced a $2.6 million hole in its transit agency’s budget as a result of the pandemic. While CARES Act funding has temporarily helped fill the gap, the agency will face a $10 million to $12 million shortfall in its fiscal year 2022 budget. 

MATBUS, serving the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area in North Dakota and Minnesota, is facing a shortfall of more than $1 million annually in coming years without federal support, prompting the agency to consider changes to its governance structure.

Already operating well below normal service levels

While action from Congress would help prevent some of the service cuts agencies are considering or expecting to make, it could also help restore service we have already lost. Many transit agencies (including some of those above) aren’t just contemplating future service cuts—they have already reduced service at the beginning of the pandemic and haven’t been able to restore it since. For example, MARTA in the Atlanta region eliminated most of its bus routes back in April, reducing 110 bus routes down to a staggering 41 routes, and is still operating at reduced capacity.

Other agencies have had to make cuts more recently. Louisville’s Transit Authority of River City cut 15 routes (about one-third of their total service) in August, citing budget challenges. King County Metro in the Seattle region cut service by 15 percent in September. The list goes on. 

Tell us about transit cuts in your community

Not all transit cuts nationwide are getting media coverage. If your local transit agency has been or will likely be forced to reduce service or layoff workers, we want to hear about it. Email us at info@t4america.org. 

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.

Cities’ priorities must be the heart of any universal curb standard. These 5 principles pave the way.

Cities and towns face a massive hurdle to managing their curb space: the lack of a  uniform way to define the curb and its users. Without a universal curb standard, it’s difficult for local governments to coordinate with each other and private entities and assess the effectiveness of their curbside management policies. Participants in our Smart Cities Collaborative joined together to develop five principles that should inform any universal curbside language and standards.

Click to download the PDF

Demands on the curb have skyrocketed in the last decade, while the amount of curb space has largely remained the same. Due to increased vehicle congestion, commerce delivery, the increase in parklets and outdoor dining, and access to modes like shared bikes and scooters and app-based ride-hailing, the curb has become a scarce and sought-after resource. 

Curbs are no longer simply for parking. They’re key to the movement of goods and people, and now even our COVID-19 response. The pandemic has only crystallized the importance of the curb, as an exponential amount of curb space has been needed for safe recreation, retail, restaurants, and more. 

Yet curbs are massively underutilized by cities and towns. Although many local governments have created or are in the process of creating strategies to manage curb space, there is no uniform way that local governments define the curb and its users. This makes it difficult for local governments to assess the effectiveness of their curbside management policies—to truly utilize curb space for the public good—because there isn’t a uniform way to evaluate data or share lessons learned with other municipalities. 

That’s why participants in our Smart Cities Collaborative joined together to create five principles that should inform the development of any universal curbside language and set of standards. These five principles for a national standard will ensure that the public interest is embedded within the standard and language itself, giving cities and towns a shared definition of the curb and its users while empowering them to customize curbside management to best serve the unique needs of their residents. 

Here’s a quick summary of our five principles for a universal curbside language and standards (UCLS). You can read much more in-depth on these principles and the need for a UCLS created by the public sector in our new report, “Principles for Universal Curbside Language & Standards.” 

PRINCIPLE 1 | LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES SET THE POLICY

A successful UCLS will be one that is shaped by the public agencies who manage the curb. 

Curbs within the public right-of-way are funded and regulated entirely with public funding and should serve community needs. For that reason alone, local public agencies—who are in charge of the curb—are best suited to lead this effort. 

While input and data from private companies—especially freight operators—is important, creating a language and standards that caters primarily to the needs of any one stakeholder would be a disservice to all users, especially the most vulnerable.

PRINCIPLE 2 | EQUITABLE 

The design of a UCLS is an opportunity to assist local governments in their effort to shift and reallocate curb space from being a free resource that serves few (primarily through car parking) to a resource that serves everyone—especially those who deserve better and more affordable access to curbs. This includes people with disabilities, people using transit; those walking, biking, or rolling; low-income people; Black, Indigenous, and people of color; and those not connected to the digital network. 

Equity must be embedded within any UCLS so that local governments can prioritize their most vulnerable right-of-way users and disadvantaged community members. You can check out our recommendations for incorporating equity into a UCLS in our full report.

PRINCIPLE 3 | OPEN & PUBLICLY OWNED DATA

Any UCLS needs to be developed with an open data approach where public agencies own the data and data is collected and shared in a secure and transparent manner that protects personally identifiable information. Open data provides transparency and ensures data can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by anyone. Public agencies—or non-profits or academic institutions—need to be the stewards of any and all curbside data. 

You can read the metrics we recommend a UCLS track in our full report. 

PRINCIPLE 4 | EASILY TRANSFERABLE

To be truly universal, the language and standards must be easily accessible, understandable, and transferable to communities of all sizes, land uses and street typologies, and densities. A scalable and customizable UCLS based on a jurisdiction’s resources, tools, and capabilities ensures mass buy-in, giving local governments the ability to share lessons learned from curbside management in the same language. 

PRINCIPLE 5 | CLEARLY COMMUNICATED

There was a considerable shift in how the curb has been used in the last decade, and in the last two years in particular due to rapid changes like the growth in e-commerce. This presents a unique opportunity for local governments, as the stewards of the curb, to rethink how to internally and externally communicate the value and importance of the curb and the benefit of a UCLS. 

Internal and external curb stakeholders must understand—through a UCLS—the changing nature and value of the curb, as well as the short and long-term benefits of more proactive curbside management.

Final thoughts: it’s critical that universal curbside language and standards are created by the public sector, for the public 

The curb is public space and a public asset, and as such it should be utilized to the greatest benefit of the public. It is the responsibility of local governments to prioritize who can use the limited amount of curb space, for what and when. Because of the many demands on the curb, without regulating and prioritizing access, our curbs cannot reflect or respond to the rapidly changing needs of the city and its users. And without applying an equity lens to prioritization of curbspace, certain users (such as people who do not own, cannot afford, or are unable to drive cars) will continue to be left behind as they do not benefit from “free” parking. 

That’s why it’s critical that the public sector informs the creation of any universal language and standards. We hope that these principles can help shape any and every UCLS to come. 

How the Biden administration can make immediate strides on climate and racial equity

The spread of COVID-19 has sent the United States plummeting into an unprecedented national crisis, but it has also illuminated the path forward. Transportation for America teamed up with our sister organizations at Smart Growth America to identify immediate executive actions and long-term policy changes that the incoming Biden administration can implement to eliminate structural inequities and address catastrophic global climate change. 

EDIT, December 2020: We updated the recommendations! Check out the full set of recommendations here and read our summary below.

Earlier this month, Transportation for America teamed up with our partners at Smart Growth America to send recommendations to the Biden transition team on executive actions and legislation. Read the full memo here, updated December 2020.

With years of federal advocacy and public service under our belts, all of us here can say this for certain: simply pumping more money into existing federal programs won’t help the United States recover from the COVID-19 crisis. In fact, taking that approach will just make our economy more unequal, lead to more pollution from transportation, and result in more expensive housing that still isn’t getting built where it’s most helpful. Money alone cannot rectify the structural inequities we are facing. 

To truly unlock our economic potential in a fiscally responsible way, tackle climate change and promote racial equity—the three goals of our recommendations—we need a new playbook. We must reform and better utilize the vast quantities of direct spending, tax credits, loan programs, formula funds, and financing that already exist. And only through a holistic approach that connects transportation, housing, and infrastructure policy can we provide Americans with freedom of transportation choice, access to affordable housing, and healthy, resilient communities.

Our recommendations to the transition team are best summed up with two simple messages. One, do not overlook how housing, land use, and transportation are interrelated in determining household costs, access to opportunity, wealth accumulation, and how much emissions we produce. And secondly, climate change and equity must be addressed together—the best strategies to improve the built environment to address one challenge also address the other.

Smart growth is the affordable, equitable, and sustainable path to recovery and prosperity. Now is the time for change enabling us to build back better, and we are glad for the opportunity to provide these recommendations to the incoming presidential administration. Read the full list of recommendations.

Here are some highlights from Transportation for America’s recommendations for immediate executive actions—most of which stem from our three principles for transportation policy.

  • Reduce emissions from transportation by re-establishing the greenhouse gas (GHG) performance measure for transportation that the Trump administration repealed, with annual state ratings.
  • Require federal agencies to issue guidance on identifying communities with infrastructure that creates barriers to mobility (such as highways that slice through a community), measuring the degree of harm to that community, and providing incentives and prioritizing resources to address those disparities by removing infrastructure barriers or creating new connectivity.
  • Require the Federal Highway Administration to update the Highway Capacity Manual to improve standards for pedestrians and cyclists which are based on accurate measures of safety and the perception of safety, including the level of traffic stress and crossing delays as opposed to volume and capacity.
  • Help transportation agencies measure access to jobs and essential services by directing research funds to create a national Geographic Information System (GIS)-based resource that allows transportation agencies to measure current levels of access to jobs and services by all modes of travel and assess the impact of planned projects.
  • The Department of Transportation should issue guidance clarifying the appropriate use of the common transportation design standard known as level of service (LOS), taking into account the impacts on induced demand, climate change, equity, and health outcomes.
  • Make a statement of support for the existing national network of state-supported and long distance passenger rail routes routes as essential connections for people in smaller and rural communities.

Playing politics with safety: “Anarchist” transit agencies caught in the crossfire

press release

In blocking New York City, Portland, and Seattle from receiving Federal Transit Administration research grants, the Trump Administration is using arbitrary and politically-motivated pretext to deny cities and transit agencies the funding they need to make transit safer amidst the ongoing pandemic.

Transportation for America joined the National Association of City Transportation Officials, TransitCenter, NRDC and and Alliance for a Just Society in a statement condemning the Trump administration’s decision. 

 

NACTO: Alex Engel | alex@nacto.org
TransitCenter: David Bragdon | dbragdon@transitcenter.org
Transportation for America: Jenna Fortunati | jenna.fortunati@t4america.org
NRDC: Mark Drajem | MDrajem@nrdc.org

As a coalition of cities, transit agencies, and transportation advocates, we oppose the Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal funds from cities the Attorney General labeled as “Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction.” Following instructions from the White House, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) disqualified transit agencies in New York City, Seattle, and Portland from participating in a new grant program to research methods to slow the spread of coronavirus on buses and trains. This move puts transit operators’ and riders’ safety at risk and sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine future economic recovery efforts.

Denying transit agencies funding obstructs their ability to develop best practices to make transit safer for millions of riders and workers, and the people with whom they interact. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York, TriMet in Portland, and King County Metro and Sound Transit in Seattle together make up nearly half of national transit ridership and have already made major contributions to our understanding of how to keep riders and operators safe from the virus. From testing vehicle filtration and UV light sanitation systems to instituting mask outreach and mandates, the ability of these larger, urban transit systems to evaluate new interventions is especially instructive for operators serving smaller, rural communities where Covid-19 outbreaks are currently most acute and resources are limited.

The Trump administration’s attempt to condition FTA grants on political criteria unrelated to need or merit sets a disturbing precedent. If applied to other forms of federal funding, this “guidance” has the potential to thwart cities’ long-term economic recovery efforts. Cities and transit agencies need a strong federal partner to maintain and restore service, invigorate local economies, and create new jobs.

Withholding federal funding from cities in retaliation for political disagreements is not only legally dubious but vindictive and undemocratic in its intent. Our organizations, representing cities, transit agencies, and transportation experts and advocates, stand in firm opposition to the Justice Department’s designation of New York, Portland, and Seattle as “anarchist jurisdictions” and against the arbitrary and capricious decision to deny some of the world’s most-used transit systems acutely-needed funding solely to serve a political agenda.

“Cities and transit agencies serve the public regardless of political affiliation or party. Withholding funds from jurisdictions in an attempt for political gain puts cities, transit agencies and our democracy at risk,” said Corinne Kisner, Executive Director of NACTO. “This decision endangers millions of transit riders and operators across our nation, and blocks those most equipped from studying new ways to make transit even safer.”

“Secretary Elaine Chao’s willingness to expose innocent transit riders and essential transit workers to greater risk of COVID just because of Donald Trump’s unrelated personal vendetta against certain local elected officials is both reckless and un-American. No American, in any city or state, should be sacrificed to a pandemic because of a President’s petty whims,” said David Bragdon of TransitCenter, an organization dedicated to improving public transportation.

“President Trump is putting ideology ahead of essential needs in the middle of a deadly pandemic,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “There simply is no excuse for leaving essential workers without a way to work and, therefore, all of us without essential services. But that is what the Trump Administration is doing to New York, Portland, and Seattle by taking away funding intended for their transit agencies.”

“This order undercuts essential workers and families who are trying to safely go back to work and school. Investments in fully-funded safe transit are critical to rebuilding an equitable and sustainable economy,” said LeeAnn Hall of Alliance for a Just Society, a national network of 15 racial, social and economic justice organizations.

“By denying funds to cities that need them, the Federal Transit Administration is putting the lives of Americans and the safety of our public transit systems at risk,” said Ann Shikany of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We need new research into how to keep our buses and trains safe during this pandemic; it’s unconscionable that this administration would play political games with something that important.”

 

About the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
NACTO is an association of 86 major North American cities and transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. The organization’s mission is to build cities as places for people, with safe, sustainable, accessible, and equitable transportation choices that support a strong economy and vibrant quality of life. To learn more, visit nacto.org or follow us on Twitter @NACTO.

About TransitCenter
TransitCenter works to improve public transportation in ways that make cities more just, sustainable and prosperous, with applied research, events and publications.

About Transportation for America
Transportation for America is an advocacy organization made up of local, regional and state leaders who envision a transportation system that safely, affordably and conveniently connects people of all means and ability to jobs, services, and opportunity through multiple modes of travel. That work is conducted through direct technical assistance, analysis of transportation system performance, and policy development and advocacy. Learn more by visiting t4america.org or following us on Twitter @T4America.

About the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
NRDC is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Bozeman, MT, and Beijing. Visit us at NRDC.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.​

Transportation ballot initiatives to watch this November

A bus in Austin, Texas approaching an intersection at dusk. There is a bike rider crossing the street in the foreground.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of ballot initiatives for transit and transportation funding passed during the 2020 spring and summer primary elections, and a surprising number will head to voters in November. Here is a look at some of the major initiatives to watch next month. 

A Capital Metro bus in Austin. Photo courtesy of Capital Metro.

Providing sustained funding for transit is more important than ever with potential service cuts looming across the country. Congress has yet to step in to provide sufficient relief funding, but some regions have a shot at raising local transit funding in November. 

A few weeks ago, we shared a summary of how transportation ballot initiatives fared during the spring and summer primary elections. While some regions and states opted to delay or cancel ballot measures due to COVID uncertainties, a number of initiatives moved forward in the primaries, and the vast majority passed. 

Many of the successful measures earlier this year were renewals of existing funding, and we’ll see some similar renewals on the ballot in November. However, there are also a surprising number of larger, forward-looking proposals headed to voters to raise new funding for transit expansion. Supporters in these regions see transit as a key part of economic recovery. Here are a few measures we will be watching especially closely.

Three big transit measures to watch 

Voters in Austin, TX will consider a proposal  to fund the first phase of Project Connect, a package of transit investments totalling $10 billion. For this initial phase, residents will vote on a property tax increase to raise $3.85 billion and leverage federal funds for a total of $7.1 billion. The proposal includes new light rail lines, a tunnel to house light rail in the downtown area, expanded bus routes, a transition to electric buses, and bus rapid transit service. It also includes $300 million for transit supportive investments, anti-displacement efforts and affordable housing along the proposed lines.

The region has a history of unsuccessful initiatives to fund light rail expansion. This proposal received unanimous approval from the Austin City Council but has faced some opposition locally, including in response to the cost and relative permanence of new light rail lines compared to improved bus service. 

Portland, OR’s Let’s Get Moving measure (Measure 26-218) would raise a 0.75 percent payroll tax for large businesses to fund dozens of light rail and bus transit expansion and safety projects for people walking and biking along identified priority corridors. The measure is expected to generate around $4.2 billion and leverage an additional $2.84 billion in matching funds. It also includes funds for anti-displacement work in predominantly Black and Brown communities along the corridors. 

Supporters argue that the investments will create 37,000 jobs and help jumpstart economic recovery. Critics have argued that the cost is too great. The business community has largely withdrawn support, and a number of larger businesses have contributed to a campaign against the measure.

These initiatives in Austin and Portland share some commonalities, including a forward-looking transit vision for the future, an emphasis on racial justice and preventing displacement, and robust campaigns supporting the measures as well as vocal local opposition.

In suburban Gwinnett County, GA in the Atlanta region, residents will vote on a proposed 30-year, 1 percent sales tax for transit expansion in the county that would raise a total of $12 billion for bus and rail expansion. This vote comes less than two years after a failed measure to fund transit expansion for both Gwinnett County bus and MARTA rail that would also have integrated Gwinnett County transit into the MARTA regional transit system—a change that county voters have rejected several times over the past few decades. This time around, the proposed improvements will primarily expand the existing Gwinnett County Transit bus system, with bus rapid transit, more local and express service, and paratransit, and some local leaders hope to see a different outcome as a result. 

We heard from Gwinnett County Commissioner Charlotte Nash at T4America’s Capital Ideas conference in 2018 about the region’s work building support for transit incrementally, so we are especially interested to see how this vote unfolds. 

Other local and state initiatives of interest 

Voters in Seattle, WA will decide whether to renew funding for the Seattle Transportation Benefit District via a six-year 0.1 percent sales tax and a car-tab fee that expires this year. The proposal will reduce total service below existing levels, but it will focus the remaining service more heavily in communities of color. The measure would generate $20 to $30 million annually over six years. 

Three smaller municipalities in Gratiot County, MI are seeking a 1-mill levy (one dollar per $1,000 dollars of assessed value) to join their region’s Alma Transit system. The St. Louis and Ithaca city councils and the Pine River Township board all passed the measure unanimously over the summer. Voters in each locality will decide in November whether they are willing to pay a property tax for public transit service in their communities. All three jurisdictions need to pass the measure for it to move forward.

Missoula, MT will ask voters to approve a property tax increase to expand Mountain Line bus service frequency, help fund the area’s zero-fare program, and support conversion to an electric bus fleet. 

Newton County, GA is seeking a 1 percent Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax for transportation. Revenues will be shared among the cities located within the county using a formula, and each city will decide how to allocate its funds—a decentralized approach in contrast to Gwinnett County’s package of proposed transit investments above.

Voters in the Bay Area, CA will consider a 1/8 cent sales tax to provide dedicated funding for the region’s commuter rail, Caltrain. The tax would generate an estimated $108 million annually, which could help provide a lifeline for the rail line as it faces the possibility of a shutdown during the pandemic due to low ridership. 

In North Carolina, residents will vote on a $1.15 billion bond measure to fund the construction and renovation of highways, roads, bridges, and related road infrastructure. The measure also includes $1.95 billion in education bonds. The state is facing a potential $5 billion shortfall due to lost tax revenue from the pandemic. 

The State of Arkansas, Bellingham, WA, Monroe, MI and Wheeling and Bethlehem, WV will all decide whether to renew existing transportation and transit funding. Similar renewals have generally done well so far in 2020 despite COVID uncertainties. 

What’s next

It’s worth noting that a number of planned ballot measures have been postponed or canceled in response to COVID—see our previous post for a non-exhaustive list. 

We’ll watch these scheduled initiatives closely as we head into the November election and will share updates on the results. Stay tuned!

New analysis shows the impact of transit service cuts—and it’s devastating

With efforts to pass federal emergency relief stalling, transit agencies across the country are warning of drastic cuts to service.TransitCenter and the Center for Neighborhood Technology teamed up to analyze the devastating impact of these cuts, reaffirming the need for Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit immediately. 

Public transportation is an absolutely critical part of millions of Americans’ lives, providing needed connections to jobs, schools, grocery stores, healthcare facilities and more. And without at least $32 billion in emergency funding for public transportation to survive the COVID-19 crisis, this vital link will crumble, leaving millions stranded. 

That’s what TransitCenter and the Center for Neighborhood Technology found in their new joint report, Stranded by Service Cuts. The researchers honed in on 10 regions across the country and modeled the human impact of 50 percent cuts to peak transit service and 30 percent cuts to off-peak service. The result is a disheartening preview of the pain facing millions of Americans and the national economy.

Across the 10 regions, “more than 3 million households and 1.4 million jobs would lose access to frequent transit,” according to the report. “Second- and third-shift workers would lose an affordable way to commute, and households without vehicles would have an even harder time meeting everyday needs.” 

The burden of these transit cuts would fall overwhelmingly on people of color. In Atlanta, this is especially pronounced: “More than half of people losing access to frequent full-day transit would be Black residents, and more than two-thirds of those losing access would be non-white or Hispanic,” according to the report. 

It doesn’t have to be this way. Congress could do its job and save public transportation—a public good that so many Americans count on. Send a message to your member of Congress today, urging them to fight for at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit in the next COVID-19 relief package.

How have transportation ballot initiatives fared during the pandemic?

Woman walking by a bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. The bus is stopped to pick up passengers.

Regional ballot initiatives are a powerful tool localities can use to raise funding for transportation projects, especially in the face of uncertain federal funding. The COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis are creating a different landscape for ballot measures than we have seen in the past, but many are still moving forward and a number have already passed. 

Check out our latest blog in this series on transportation ballot initiatives to watch this November.

Woman walking by a bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. The bus is stopped to pick up passengers.
A bus in Anchorage, Alaska

We are big proponents of regional ballot initiatives (RBIs) here at Transportation for America. They can be transformative for localities, giving them more control over the growth of their transportation systems, making them less reliant on federal and state funding, and making voters partners in deciding the future of the system and contributing to maintaining it. In fact, we have been working for several years with our partners in Massachusetts to encourage the state legislature to grant localities the authority to go to their own voters seeking support for important infrastructure priorities. The state is one of only a handful of states that do not allow their localities this authority.

In the past, we have tracked ballot measures around the country during elections and profiled examples of successful initiatives, but this year is different and unprecedented. The COVID shutdown began right as the early spring primary elections were taking place, disrupting many of those votes. The economic crisis has raised questions about the wisdom of going to voters for additional funding at all right now, even as more funding for transit is sorely needed. 

Despite those uncertainties, a number of ballot initiatives did move forward—and pass—during the spring and summer primaries. While it is difficult to predict what will happen in November based on those results, there are still some insights we can glean. 

Here are our key takeaways from the local and state transportation votes that have already happened in 2020. Stay tuned for a follow-up post profiling the measures we’ll be watching in the November election. 

Voters overwhelmingly approved renewals of existing transportation funding 

A number of local property taxes that support transit were up for renewal this year, including for transit systems serving rural areas. Those votes have consistently passed—often by margins similar to prior pre-COVID votes based on the Center for Transportation Excellence’s transit campaign tracker. A few property tax renewals have also passed with small increases in the property tax rates to help keep up with existing service levels.

While those results may not be as exciting (or controversial) as big ticket campaigns to expand transit systems, the wins send a clear message. Many voters in smaller cities and rural areas served by transit want to see that service preserved, and they are willing to keep paying to make that happen despite today’s economic uncertainties. While some of these votes occurred in March before we had a sense of the extent or impacts of the pandemic, a number occurred over the summer with similar results.

For example, in Maine, which is heavily reliant on borrowing to fund transportation, voters approved a $105 million statewide bond measure during the state’s July primary, making this the sixth straight year of similar bond measures for transportation (and the 10th approved transportation bond measure in the past 13 years). The transportation bond will help plug the state’s funding shortfall by drawing down $275 million in matching federal and other funds. Most of the funding will go toward road infrastructure projects, while $15 million will be devoted to transit multimodal investments. Again, voters opted to continue funding their current system.

Voters approved new funding for transit in the Cincinnati region and Anchorage

In Hamilton County, home of the Cincinnati metro area, voters passed Issue 7 by a narrow (0.7 percent) margin during their April 28 primary election, approving an historic 0.8 percent sales tax increase for transit. These revenues will fund bus service improvements and transit-supportive infrastructure investments. It is expected to generate roughly $130 million annually, 75 percent of which will go to the Southern Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA), with the rest dedicated to road and bridge improvements along transit routes. SORTA will be able to begin implementing the Reinventing Metro plan to provide faster, more frequent service, extended hours, and better rider amenities.

Issue 7’s passage is remarkable—especially during COVID—because it marks the first time county voters have approved a sales tax hike to support transportation improvements or any sort of transit-related tax in nearly 50 years. The initiative had the backing of a strong coalition of local organizations and decision-makers. 

Meanwhile, in Anchorage, voters passed Proposition 8 on April 7, approving a $5 million bond for transit and public safety improvements by a 59 percent vote. The bond will fund improvements to the City’s public safety radio network and purchase of cardiac monitors, as well as replacing public transit buses and improving bus stops. Previous transit funding initiatives in Anchorage have generally failed, though the City did pull together funding for a new route in early 2020 (pre-COVID) in response to residents and advocates. Grouping transit and public safety improvements together may have played a role in Proposition 8’s success. 

While the results of these two initiatives are promising, it is worth noting that both votes occurred relatively early in the pandemic when many people still thought life might return to normal in a few months. They may not provide an accurate prediction of what will happen in November. 

A number of states and localities have delayed or canceled transportation ballot initiatives

A number of localities and states have chosen not to put planned transportation measures on the ballot for their primary or November elections due to COVID uncertainties, citing more pressing priorities related to the pandemic and doubts about whether voters would approve tax increases. Transportation and transit funding votes have been delayed or canceled in Sacramento, San Diego, and the Bay Area in California; Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange Counties in Florida; Bend, Oregon; and several states, including Oregon, New Jersey, and Colorado.

Looking ahead

Despite the uncertainties, a number of transportation funding votes will be going forward in the November election, including several larger initiatives to fund new transit and transportation infrastructure. In this follow-up post, we profile some of the measures we’re watching especially closely leading up to the election. 

This is the first in a series of posts we’re writing on 2020 ballot initiatives leading up to the November election. Keep up with T4America by subscribing to our bi-weekly newsletter, the Round-up.

Video: Rural transit agencies warn of devastating service cuts

It’s not just big city transit agencies that are suffering debilitating financial losses due to COVID-19: the pandemic is affecting rural and mid-sized transit agencies to the point where they might have to close their doors—permanently. Agency directors in Oklahoma and Illinois shared about the impacts.

Americans rely on public transportation all over the country—not just in big cities like New York or Chicago. Yet in our own analysis, we found that more than one million households in predominantly rural counties do not have access to a car. That doesn’t include households with one car shared between multiple working adults. 

Without transit, these rural households will be stranded. And by failing to include transit in COVID-19 relief packages (aside from yesterday’s House package that included $32 billion for transit, which we hope remains in the bill and is passed by the Senate), Congress is apparently okay with that. 

In two new videos released by Transportation for America, rural and mid-sized transit agencies warn of permanently cutting transit service as a result of financial strains from COVID-19. Directors of Little Dixie Transit in southeastern Oklahoma and the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD) in Illinois spoke of how COVID-19 is impacting their riders, employees, and ability to provide robust transit service now and in the future. If Congress doesn’t provide public transportation with at least $32 billion in emergency relief,  both agencies will be forced to radically cut service—or even “shut our doors,” as Little Dixie Transit director Jeannie McMillin warned.

Check out short video highlights of the interviews below, and watch the full interview with Champaign-Urbana MTD’s director here.

Tell Congress to pass at least $32 billion in emergency relief for transit in the next COVID-19 relief package. House Democrats have tentatively included $32 billion for transit in their latest relief package, but it still has to pass the House—and then the Senate.

Send a message to your members of Congress

Congress, transit needs at least $32 billion. Now.

Public transportation is in an unprecedented crisis, with the double whammy of falling ridership and a contracting economy crushing transit agencies’ budgets. Massive cuts to transit service are imminent if agencies don’t receive the emergency funding they need to survive. There will be no economic recovery if transit evaporates. Congress needs to #SaveTransit. 

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.

Public transit is essential to millions of people across the country who rely on it everyday to reach doctor’s appointments, jobs, grocery stores, and other vital services. It’s an elevator of economic mobility, providing access to the economy to those who cannot afford to or can’t drive—including many who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 crisis. 

Without transit, millions of Americans will be unable to get to work or find new jobs, potentially trapping them in economic stagnation. Without transit, businesses may not be able to reopen, or have customers to serve. Without transit, our pandemic response—and our hope for a strong economic recovery from this pandemic—vanishes. 

Yet Congress has passed zero emergency dollars for transit since the first COVID-19 relief package in March. And that money has already run out for many agencies, due to necessary and expensive measures meant to keep employees and riders safe—at the same time they’re losing funding from decreased fares and local sales taxes. 

Congress has hardly even proposed emergency funding for transit. The Senate’s latest COVID-19 relief proposal included zero dollars for transit, and the relief plan passed by the House of Representatives includes only half of what transit needs to survive. 

This is unacceptable. Public transit agencies are calling on Congress to provide agencies with at least $32 billion in emergency relief. This critical funding would allow agencies to restore and safely operate the transit service that so many Americans need. 

We need you to take action to #SaveTransit. Please, tweet at your member of Congress to #SaveTransit using our social media toolkit, and send an email to your members using our action page.

Want to learn more about the transit crisis? Check out some of our blog posts: