Without full transparency on California’s transportation spending, the state’s transportation investments will never align with our climate goals.
This post by Transform Policy Director Zack Deutsch-Gross and T4A Policy Manager Corrigan Salerno was originally published by Next City. Click here to read the original.
With the fifth largest economy in the world, California has for decades set the tone for what is possible on climate, with other states and even countries looking to it for bold policy leadership and direction. Yet while Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to tout California as a climate leader, his transportation agency—operating with little public oversight or accountability—continues to advance harmful projects that will guarantee future increases in emissions.
Nowhere is this contradiction more apparent than in how California is spending its Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) dollars.
The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was hailed by the Biden Administration as the biggest investment in climate in U.S. history. It devoted $1.2 trillion to “rebuild America’s roads, bridges and rail, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind.” But states were given enormous latitude in choosing how to spend the hundreds of billions intended for transportation.
Both states and the federal government failed to embrace climate-forward policy to implement the infrastructure law, predictably directing funds to emissions increasing highway building. California’s current IIJA spending will result in a net increase of over 2.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses above pre-IIJA levels by 2040, according to a recent analysis of IIJA grant awards in California by Transportation for America. Despite ambitious climate legislation and impressive emissions reduction targets, California has dedicated more IIJA funds toward emissions-increasing projects than any state except Florida and Texas.
Driving this increase in emissions is the over $2 billion of federal dollars alone that California’s Department of Transportation, Caltrans, is spending on highway expansion. Building more and wider roads encourages more people to drive, undercuts public transit investments and increases greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and one of the few sectors where emissions are still increasing annually. Yet while the state is literally on fire, Caltrans is doubling down on climate arson—a term we do not use lightly.
California’s IIJA spending begins to explain why we are off track when it comes to meeting climate goals. What about the rest of the state’s $30 billion in annual transportation spending?
Unfortunately, we don’t know. Caltrans does not collect and publicly display data in an accessible manner, and reports to the legislature are piecemeal at best. RebuildingCA.ca.gov, the public dashboard Caltrans uses to report on projects, is the best available resource to learn how transportation dollars are being spent in your community. But the website includes no information about how these projects contribute to improving safety, increasing opportunity in disadvantaged communities, or addressing climate change.
This lack of accountability allows Gov. Newsom to proclaim himself a climate leader even as his transportation agency fails to live up to his public promises. We need transparency if we are to hold state agencies to account.
Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo’s Transportation Accountability Act, AB 2086, which Transform is cosponsoring with The Greenlining Institute, will change that.
AB 2086 requires Caltrans to publicly demonstrate how its annual spending on major transportation programs is advancing the vision and goals of the California Transportation Plan. It will streamline existing, fragmented transportation reporting efforts into a uniform and consistent format made publicly available online. This will ensure that the public, lawmakers, and transportation decision-makers can easily access and understand how California’s transportation investments impact their communities and align with the state’s goals.
Now more than ever, we need more than rhetoric. We can’t expect another generational infrastructure investment from the federal government, and in tight budget years to come, California needs to maximize the return on every transportation dollar it spends.
We need to rebuild public trust by demonstrating results to voters through transparent, public reporting. We need to put our money where our mouth is by prioritizing climate-friendly transportation investments. While AB 2086 won’t change transportation spending overnight, it is an essential step toward addressing the climate crisis with fundamental good governance. Without it, all we can expect is continued inaction.
It’s nearly impossible to move forward with a transition to electric vehicles without a network of chargers in place. However, though some federal funds have rolled out to the states, efforts to build out a charging network still have a long way to go.
This apartment building in Vienna, VA (Halstead Square) includes space for vehicle charging. Chargers placed near apartments can help create a more robust charging network. (Dan Reed, Flickr)
Transportation is one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Take it from USDOT—any effective strategy to reduce emissions requires both a transition to electric vehicles and opportunities to travel outside of a car.
To support the shift toward more sustainable transportation, federal and state governments are funding vital infrastructure for non-gas and non-diesel options. Highways that reliably connect sustainable fuel sources are gaining a shiny new distinction: alternative fuel corridors, or AFCs.
AFCs have become a key aspect of national strategy toward reducing environmental harms. First name-dropped on Capitol Hill in 2009, state governments from California to New York have been supporting efforts toward non-gasoline or diesel fuels even before that, naming their own corridors as well as establishing tax credits and HOV lane access for electric and alternative fuel vehicles.
Federal legislation from as early as 2015 called for the designation of AFCs, allowing them to be mapped out on a national level. Alternative fuel corridors could be designated for five specific fueling types: hydrogen, propane, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, and electricity. Among the alternative candidates on the list, electric vehicles have been the option of choice for everyday Americans looking to commute to work, school, and the grocery store with the occasional road trip for leisure.
While this early effort helped link individual states’ efforts to build a connected sustainable highway network, money to build infrastructure would not arrive until the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Under the IIJA, it’s up to states to deploy the majority of EV funds through the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure formula program, and the administration to handle the $2.5 billion Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program. The Departments of Transportation and Energy jointly administer and manage these programs through the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, though the Federal Highway Administration plays the leading role.
Funding charging options
While the Biden administration has faced criticism for a sluggish EV charging station rollout, with fewer chargers deployed than hoped after 3 years, states each had to spin up individual programs for two-thirds of that funding. As states roll out their plans and start scaling deployment, we’ll begin to see progress accelerate.
In many states, NEVI sites are meeting trends in industry standardization, adopting the Tesla-led NACS guidelines for chargers while also including adaptors for CCS vehicles. The Department of Transportation has made progress in loosening and clarifying certain requirements for federal electrification programs. Under the first round of Charging and Fueling Infrastructure grants, half of the funding for EV and alternative fueling stations was initially required to be placed within 1 mile of alternative fuel corridors, a rule that helped functionally limit chargers largely to car-dependent gas stations and roadside malls.
However, the CFI Alternative Fuel Corridor program’s second round of funding expanded this radius to 5 miles, a change T4A has previously advocated for. This change comes just in time too, as applications for the current notice of funding are open until September 11, 2024. On top of that, the CFI grant can help build more than just car chargers — FHWA has clarified that some e-micromobility improvements can be added on top of CFI projects. Recently announced awardees of CFI Round 1B, like New York City, may be taking advantage of this. While CFI fills in many gaps, future programs should go all the way on supporting e-micromobility.
The gas station model won’t be enough
The EV transition alone can’t be the sole strategy toward fighting transportation emissions, and it’ll fail if we follow the same patterns as the gas-powered status quo. The basic mechanics of fueling are different, taking an average of two minutes for gas-powered cars versus the twenty required for EVs.
People stand to benefit from healthy, walkable services and amenities, but that environment is not easily found given the current infrastructure. Building charging stations in small town main streets off the highway, even if they may take slightly longer to access, could boost local economies while also providing a more engaging break from the road: walking to local parks, checking out mom-and-pop stores, or grabbing groceries from nearby markets.
Additionally, more thought must be placed into how chargers’ placements can influence driving patterns. Focusing charger construction along highways could lead to more time spent driving, leading to tire emissions and increased wear on our roadways due to the high weight of EV batteries.
Alternative fuel corridors are only as efficient as the types of vehicles that they transport: for natural gas and hydrogen options, which are more focused on long-distance freight, it makes sense for these fueling stations to be placed near industrial areas and highways. However, EVs that largely serve commuters should have charging stations placed where individuals live and work, not necessarily where people drive the longest.
While these programs are taking steps forward, we could go further to ensure that the EV transition is making the biggest benefit. Perhaps a new designation can be created for urban areas, where residents and pedestrians are forced to walk near the polluted air of crowded city streets. Alternative fueling zones, similar to the low emissions zones that limit polluting vehicles from accessing some city centers, could provide charging solutions to promote cleaner population centers. Prioritizing charging in urban offices and apartment buildings can boost charging access, making communities more energy-efficient and more convenient places to live and travel.
The bottom line
Constituents and markets—even in states deeply entrenched in America’s fossil fuel industry—have an appetite for greater choice in transportation. While the IIJA contained major funding wins for cleaner transportation options, its 2026 expiration is quickly approaching. As federal legislators plan the next transportation reauthorization’s funding for EVs, they need to remember it is not just how much funding to allocate, but what policy to enact to maximize benefits for all.
54 years since the first Earth Day, the US is still focusing on highway expansion. In light of increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, due in part to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Transportation for America and its partners engaged the Future of Transportation Caucus to brief Congress on transportation decarbonization. We explained that to truly decrease emissions we need to electrify transportation systems and support travel options beyond private vehicles.
In a briefing on Capitol Hill, T4A Policy Associate Corrigan Salerno showed how highway expansion funds in the IIJA dwarfed historic investments in public transit leading to disastrous GHG emissions increases. The short and sweet of it is that mode-shift needs to be coupled with electrification to decrease our GHG emissions. Taylor Reich from the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy explained that coupling electrifying transportation with mode shift (opportunities to travel outside of a car) will save the government and private citizens trillions, lower energy consumption, and lower emissions.
Miguel Moravec from the Rocky Mountain Institute and Move Minnesota advocate Katie Jones described how states are already incorporating electrification and mode shift into policy. Minnesota’s Climate Action Framework and Colorado’s GHG Transportation Planning Standard require transportation infrastructure projects to abide by local GHG reduction targets. Thanks to these regulations, major highway expansion plans have been set aside in favor of bus rapid transit, active transportation networks, and transit oriented development.
The path forward
Most of the funding for highway expansion projects comes from formula funds with few strings attached, giving state departments of transportation (DOT) the option to expand aggressively. With the Senate voting 53-47 against mandating DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to track their GHG emissions, Congress is not helping increase transparency into our state transportation investments or halt endless highway growth.
Colorado and Minnesota are already implementing solutions and Maryland is trying to catch up. The federal government must meet their decarbonization efforts by bringing these state-level approaches to a national scale.
And there’s a path forward to do just that. Legislation such as Senator Markey’s GREEN Streets Act requires minimum standards for GHG, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and air pollution reductions. It would also require DOTs and MPOs to publicize the environmental and health impact data for large expansion projects.
We already know that transportation decarbonization is necessary for fighting climate change. Electrifying all cars, a lofty goal on its own, won’t be enough to solve our climate crisis. Goal setting and transparency are integral to decarbonization. Without building more public transportation, establishing more active transportation infrastructure, and giving people the freedom to travel outside of a car, we won’t make significant progress. To truly respect our planet, our federal leaders must do more to address mode shift and electrification.
The four presenters at the briefing (from left to right): Miguel Moravec, Katie Jones, Taylor Reich, and Corrigan Salerno.
The environmental impacts of the Interstate Highway System continue to harm communities of color through health hazards, pollution, and displacement.
A highway snakes through Seattle, Washington (Flickr photo)
The sprawling roadway network of the Interstate Highway System (IHS) is a ubiquitous feature of life in America. Long drives along vast stretches of freeway have come to symbolize mobility and freedom in cultural memory, obscuring the insidious nature of the creation of the highway system and its legacies of environmental racism and inequality.
These legacies are not abstract; they have tangible effects in terms of pollution, population displacement, and environmental degradation. To illustrate this point, we’ll start with a story.
The community of Shiloh in Coffee County, Alabama
Highways can endanger lives by exacerbating negative health and safety outcomes. This is exemplified in the ongoing injustices against the predominantly Black community of Shiloh in Coffee County, located in the rural south of Alabama, where the expansion of Highway 84 from 2 to 4 lanes has compounded flooding impacts for the residents. Completed in 2018, the highway expansion project elevated the roadway significantly higher than the existing terrain and neighborhood.
When it rains, the water from the highway is diverted towards people’s homes (as you can see in this video from ABC News) as pipes in the drainage system are pointed in the direction of the neighborhood. Paved roadways are also particularly impervious to stormwater and create substantial run-off, which picks up additives such as rust, metals, and pesticides. The Shiloh community consistently experiences flooding, and with heavy rain becoming increasingly frequent due to climate change, the situation is only expected to worsen. Flooding has affected the structural integrity of homes and is raising alarming health concerns with residents reporting the appearance of mold. Physical damages and rising maintenance issues have forced the Shiloh community to contend with the difficult reality of investing in expensive repair projects or leaving their homes.
The Shiloh community has been working to bring awareness to the plight and adversity they have been experiencing for the past 6 years, in a political landscape that has largely neglected to address the severity of the environmental disaster created in their backyard. Alabama DOT (ALDOT) continues to maintain that no discrimination took place when they planned the highway widening project and that the flooding is not a consequence of the expansion. Following community complaints, three residents received settlements of $5000 or less in exchange for restrictive covenants on their property that release ALDOT from any responsibility of flood damage, which is the extent of any action taken by the state.
Robert Bullard, popularly known as the “father of environmental justice,” has also been collaborating with the community to demand accountability at the federal level. Their efforts culminated in an ongoing civil rights investigation from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and a visit from the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg in early April of this year. But so far, no real relief has been found. The residents that signed away their rights feel misled and misheard, with the fear that their homes—and all the wealth and history they hold—are being washed away.
A compounding price
While the community of Shiloh’s case is an extreme example, countless communities across the country are harmed by existing highways and highway expansion projects. The highway system was constructed in a way that cut through vibrant existing neighborhoods, plowing through the heart of communities of color. This build-out of infrastructure cemented racial divides and segregation, encouraging connectivity for certain communities at the expense of others.
Inequities produced by the highway system are reinforced daily, with communities neighboring freeways bearing a disproportionate share of environmental harm. The siting of highways has historically exposed low-income communities and communities of color to higher amounts of air, water, and noise pollutants which in turn produces higher risk for disease and illness. Research indicates that there is a higher exposure to air contaminants for these communities which increases risk for cardiovascular disease and lung problems, among other health concerns. Proximity to paved surfaces, which absorb more heat than natural surfaces, means that communities are subjected to extreme heat as well.
Residents of Little Village, a predominantly Hispanic community in Chicago, have had to contend with poor quality air as a constant feature of their neighborhood that is located in close proximity to Interstate 55. Despite this, a proposal was introduced to add new lanes to the highway, incentivizing increased traffic, leading to a higher concentration of air pollutants in the region and a litany of detrimental health effects. Similarly, a controversial expansion of I-45 in North Houston is set to start soon, which would displace communities and add to existing problems of air pollution.
One of the regulatory tools that the public has at their disposal to challenge administrative actions is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Enacted in 1970, NEPA requires agencies to produce detailed statements on the environmental impacts of a project, potential actions to mitigate damage, and alternative projects with lower impact. Periods for public comment are integrated into the process as opportunities for affected communities to raise concerns and ensure that their considerations are involved in the decision-making process. Although NEPA gives the public a platform to voice their concerns about projects, it is not designed to stop these projects from being implemented, even if they may cause significant environmental harm. This means that infrastructure projects, such as highway construction and expansion, can continue to move forward even when the repercussions on environmental justice are clear.
Recent research and analysis conducted by T4A has found that trends of highway expansion are continuing to stay the same. Funding is being moved towards emissions-increasing roadway widenings at a critical moment in the climate crisis when our dollars should be spent towards robust public and alternative transportation options. Our transportation system is steeped in environmental racism and continues to function as a driver of inequality. It has created countless socio-economic benefits for certain communities at the tremendous expense of others. Changing weather patterns have also unearthed the fragility of our transportation networks and the need for resilience to allow them to withstand vulnerability.
As the current administration works towards building a future for transportation infrastructure that is equitable and sustainable, it is presented with an opportunity to radically redress historic inequities and meaningfully change how we invest our federal transportation dollars and prioritize who we invest in. Our report, Divided by Design, explains further. Read it here.
The Federal Transit Administration is working hard to ensure that the next rounds of the Low or No Emissions Grant Program and Buses and Bus Facilities Program do the most for riders—and the climate. Here’s how.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Low or No Emissions Grant Program (Low No) and Buses and Bus Facilities Program have been delivering new transit vehicles to communities across the country since 2016. But when the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, or the 2021 infrastructure law) passed, the bill supercharged the program. Funding for the Low No program increased over five times the previous levels, growing from $182 million for 49 awardees in fiscal year 2021 to $1.22 billion across 130 grant winners in fiscal year 2023. With all that money flowing into communities, the transition to zero emission transit systems should be accelerating at scale.
However, funding isn’t everything. Without proper policy in place, the way that funding is spent could mean less transit service per dollar, not more. According to the Eno Center for Transportation, zero emission buses purchased with federal funding cost more per bus than buses purchased without federal dollars.
Under the previous structure for the Low No program, transit agencies had flexibility to use federal dollars to customize their purchases nearly as much as they wanted, without sharing costs for extra features or preferences. And this doesn’t just create a nuisance—combined with other economic forces, this cost has worked to outweigh the benefits of historic funding increases. In battery electric bus manufacturer Proterra’s 2023 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, they claimed that excessive customization and long lead times for payments from transit agency customers played a role in their fall.
While some customization to meet performance needs is warranted, at the end of the day, a bus is a bus—frequency and network coverage matters above all for riders. So CHARGE, supported by the National Campaign for Transit Justice, sent a letter to the FTA urging for reforms to ensure that the IIJA’s historic funding is used more effectively to deploy clean buses in communities across the country.
In line with the administration’s equity and domestic industry goals, the FTA responded to our letter and updated the Low No and Buses and Bus Facility program to help ensure riders will get more buses, for less money, faster, while also making sure local manufacturing can work at scale. Along with new guidance, the FTA has made new changes to this year’s notice of funding, incentivizing applicants to minimize vehicle customization and reform procurement processes, helping more clean buses get out to communities faster than ever.
We thank the FTA for their responsiveness and willingness to pivot in its implementation of the IIJA to maximize the benefits it can provide, getting more buses to more people for fewer dollars.
Despite the transportation sector being the biggest emitter of U.S. greenhouse gasses, our AI-powered analysis of over 57,000 infrastructure law-funded state projects shows that over a quarter of the law’s formula dollars are funding highway expansion projects that will drastically increase emissions. Will states reverse course with the last two fiscal years of funding?
In a recent briefing with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Washington, DC, Delaware Senator Tom Carper took to the stage and reflected on the 2021 infrastructure law (also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act or IIJA), and its importance in the fight against climate change. While several Democratic senators have touted the IIJA as important for reducing emissions, as it currently stands, the landmark legislation has not made a positive impact.
While it is true that the IIJA gave states an unprecedented opportunity to use formula program dollars towards emissions-reducing projects, state DOTs also retained the flexibility and authority to invest in traditional, unsustainable road-building projects. Climate researchers found that states are key in determining if the infrastructure law would reduce emissions or use the new funding to make the current problem that much worse.
Keeping these two potential outcomes in mind, we set out to determine how states are actually using the IIJA’s historic funding. With the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI), we categorized thousands of infrastructure law federal award project descriptions (here’s an example) in line with the Georgetown Climate Center’s Transportation Investment Strategy Tool. We now have a picture of how states are using their federal program funding.
Through the analysis, we categorized over $130 billion in funding that has been reported as obligated (or designated to be spent) using IIJA funding from over 56,000 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects, over 1,200 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants, and dozens of grants from the Office of the Secretary and Federal Railroad Administration.
While we’re still just scratching the surface of this massive data set, what we found does not paint a pretty picture.
Our findings
Instead of using the historic funding levels to give people alternatives to congestion, pollution, and car dependency, our analysis finds that states have designated over $33 billion in federal dollars (over 25 percent of analyzed funds) toward projects that expand road capacity, doubling down on a strategy that has failed time and time again. Worse still, states and authorities are slow to designate funds for transit and other emissions-reducing projects and even slower to outlay (actually spend) funds relative to FHWA dollar spending, even as we’re running out of time to reduce emissions in the face of climate change. Only about 20% of FTA formula apportionments from fiscal year 2022 to 2024 are reported as obligated in this dataset, while 64% of FHWA formula apportionments are reported obligated, in line with reporting from USDOT. There is also concern that if IIJA funds are not obligated/designated to be spent within a specified period of time, they could expire (or lapse) and become unavailable for use.
To maintain just the literal surface of the nation’s massive inventory of roads, nearly 28% of analyzed funding has gone to highway resurfacing, a strategy that the Georgetown Climate Center’s Transportation Investment Strategy Tool found to help reduce emissions. Considering other infrastructural work unrelated to on-road emissions, we found that road maintenance accounts for more than half of all FHWA formula spending.
Our analysis includes only the information provided by the federal government on USAspending.gov. State DOTs and federal agencies are slow to update project spending data, and many discretionary awards are not yet uploaded to USAspending.gov, so this analysis does not reflect all of the IIJA’s spending. Instead, we intend this analysis to shine a light on how states are using the largest, most flexible, and often least understood chunk of federal funding—federal highway formula funds. Without federal guardrails on states or a drastic change in spending priorities, our analysis predicts a substantial increase in GHG emissions if current trends persist.
We’re only just approaching the midway point for the IIJA, which is set to expire on September 30, 2026. If states continue to fund and advance projects in the same way that they’ve done so far, the IIJA will have an alarming impact on the climate. If states do not change course, the IIJA is on track to produce an additional 178.5 million tonnes of CO2e GHG over baseline emissions by 2040. According to the EPA, this is the emissions equivalent of running 48 coal-fired power plants for a full year.
While the IIJA could have been a win for the environment, across the country, states have instead used this once-in-a-generation level of funding to expand roadways the same way they’ve been doing for years. Considering the billions of federal dollars already spent on highway expansion projects, it’s going to take more than self-congratulation over the bill’s historic funding to undo the environmental harms. In light of our findings that state spending continues to undermine climate goals, the administration cannot compromise on reducing transportation emissions and must explore every means available. Congress needs to get real—the largest and most growing sector of emissions is transportation. If we want to tackle congestion and the climate crisis, instead of offering platitudes, the next transportation bill needs to offer clean mobility options, like transit, car share, active modes, and electrification—not just the same strategies that got us in this position in the first place.
United States Reported Obligation Strategy Breakdown
AI-assisted analysis based on data reported to USAspending.gov, updated 2/15/24.
On January 23, 2024, Transportation for America, in partnership with the Bicameral Electrification Caucus, organized a roundtable discussion on Capitol Hill on the vital connection between smart growth and transportation electrification, and the strategies that need to be prioritized to achieve transportation equity and decarbonization goals in the next transportation reauthorization.When it comes to decarbonizing transportation it’s not about either-or. We need both electrification and more mobility choices to meet our emissions targets.
Roundtable recap
In our EVs and Smart Growth series, we discussed many of the opportunities, strategies and challenges that could be deployed to maximize the emissions-reducing benefits of electrification and smart growth strategies. The top takeaway? We need to implement both policies that give people more mobility options and transportation electrification policies. Otherwise, we will not hit our climate targets. Last month, we brought together experts from the CHARGE Coalition to amplify the many different ways to implement transportation electrification while achieving sustainable, smart growth goals.
Forth, a nonprofit focused on expanding equitable access to electric transportation, was recently awarded funds by the Joint Office to help support an equitable electric transition. At the roundtable, Forth amplified their work building shared electric mobility programs through carshare and increasing access to charging in multifamily housing.
Forth wasn’t the only one touting the benefits of electric carshare programs. East Metro Strong has been working on carshare hubs centering multifamily and affordable housing from their base in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In areas where transit does not yet work for all trips, carshare can bridge mobility gaps that might otherwise require people to take on the costly prospect of car ownership—and this strategy should have a place in the next reauthorization.
re:Charge, a company working to build shared electric micromobility charging hubs to decrease downtime and charging costs, joined the roundtable to highlight the success of shared micromobility programs in cities. They also explained how sustained federal support could unlock the mode’s equity-boosting and traffic-reducing benefits. For example, while investor-owned shared-fleet micromobility has seen success in some markets and struggles in others, e-micromobility has helped catapult DC’s Capital Bikeshare to record heights.
As the transition to electrified transit fleets continues, jurisdictions will need support and resources to manage their new assets. At the roundtable, the Center for Transportation and the Environment advocated for increased technical assistance and support to ensure smooth clean fleet deployments. CALSTART, another organization helping lead the transition for buses, trucks, and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, outlined the opportunities to draw from state-level transportation electrification programs. Innovative programs are available at the state level, including the Clean Mobility Options program, which provides in-depth technical assistance to communities throughout the implementation process. New transportation reauthorization programs should be designed to clearly allow new approaches that work for cities and provide the support needed to implement them.
The Zero Emission Transportation Association, representing EV and charger manufacturers and other industries in the EV environment, emphasized the growing importance of charger co-location with amenities (or what we call charger-oriented development), and recognition from industry that it’s time to move charging away from the traditional gas station model. Finally, the New Urban Mobility Alliance (NUMO) uplifted how relatively small but smart charging policies could help make the difference for an urbanized electric transition. In dense contexts, private charging infrastructure can be leveraged to increase charging options for more users with the simple addition of a cable and meter. Policies should take into account ways that private investments can be leveraged to boost charger network coverage for all users.
Two paths forward
A chart from the Institute for Transportation Development Policy showing the different emissions trends that result from three transportation policy strategies, and a shaded area that would describe the threshold for warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Smart growth strategies will need to work hand in hand with transportation electrification to achieve climate goals.
As we approach the midpoint for the current transportation reauthorization, we’re finally starting to see how the infrastructure law’s new electric vehicle infrastructure programs are charting a path toward an electrified future.
Last month, we saw the release of the first set of the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure program awards, which put out $622 million in funding for hydrogen fuel stations and over 7,000 EV chargers—and many of these chargers are sited in communities that need them most. Awardees selected would site both level 2 and level 3 fast chargers in disadvantaged communities, near public parks and libraries, small rural towns, and at multifamily housing. These are all places that would benefit greatly from electrification, but typically can’t rely on private investment. In some cases, awarded projects emphasized multimodal connections, including e-micromobility hubs, transit-oriented developments and even EV carshare—all strategies we uplifted in our EVs and Smart Growth series.
A newly awarded NEVI site deployed into a greenfield development. By building out where no infrastructure yet exists, investments like these can take from agricultural land and perpetuate car-dependent sprawl.
These new CFI awards show that when we double-down on integrating EV investments with smart growth strategies, we can invest in a more equitable and community-oriented electrified future, all while reducing emissions even further. However, as the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program continues to roll out across the country, we see a contrast with the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program that illustrates that how we choose to electrify will have implications beyond the quantity of chargers we build.
With the latest announcement of state’s NEVI-funded chargers, there is now a clear pattern to the program, evident among the first dozen states to grant site-level awards. NEVI limits projects to sites closest to highways, without any requirement to invest in communities’ existing infrastructure—continuing a gas station mindset that doesn’t line up with EV needs. While NEVI may alleviate range anxiety, it’s currently functioning as another federal program that incentivizes continued sprawl and greenfield development.
We’ve updated our map of awardee NEVI sites, color coded with Walkscore (red is less than 50, orange is 50-75, and green is anything with a Walkscore of 75 or greater), which you can find here:
With reauthorization fast approaching, policymakers need a clear model for what transportation electrification should look like. We need to uplift policies, programs, and projects that put communities and equity first while reducing the need for people to rely entirely on cars for their mobility needs. It’s either that, or we continue the same unsustainable development and transportation choices that gave us the very climate crisis electrification is supposed to solve. EVs must be implemented with smart growth strategies, or else we might just miss the whole point of electrification—and miss our climate targets in the process. Future EV programs should prioritize projects that acknowledge this and contribute to the buildout of new e-micromobility and transit infrastructure and support zero-emission, smart growth infrastructure.
The EPA’s proposed tailpipe regulations could reduce carbon emissions across all types of vehicles over the coming decades. While reducing emissions produced on the road can only be part of our national climate strategy, the EPA’s rule could be a boon for communities thanks to the benefits of zero emissions vehicles. However, recent opposition means this rule’s future could be at risk.
On April 12th, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced an update to federal vehicle emissions standards that could accelerate the ongoing transition to a clean vehicle future. While these new measures are an essential step forward, addressing vehicle emissions at the exhaust pipe alone is no silver bullet. As we found in our Driving Down Emissions report, we need to combine vehicle electrification strategies with transportation alternatives, like transit, walking, and biking, to make the most of the clean vehicle switch. The EPA has since released the text of the proposed rule, with comments closing soon—July 5, 2023.
When combined with another proposed rule that closed comments in mid-June, this rule would require that by 2032, two-thirds of cars and light trucks, 46 percent of medium-duty vehicles (such as delivery vans), half of all buses, and a quarter of all heavy-duty trucks sold would need to be zero-emission vehicles. The rule does not specify the fuel source to reach zero emissions, leaving the industry room to experiment with new solutions.
The EPA estimates that just the new light-duty tailpipe regulations alone could cut down the U.S.’s carbon emissions by 15.5 percent. These sweeping regulations on new vehicles would take effect in 2027 and build off a decade of standards implemented by the EPA.
The third and final phase
This recent regulation is the last phase of a three-step strategy to support the United States’ international commitments to limit emissions and slow the progress of climate change. The first two phases of the EPA’s tailpipe emission standards focused specifically on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Phase One (2011) of the greenhouse gas emission standards targeted medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDVs) models to be made in the years 2014-2018 and set fuel efficiency and emissions standards for manufacturers, while Phase Two (2016) set even stricter standards for MHDVs for the model years 2019-2027.
With the years of lead time provided, these regulations gave automotive manufacturers adequate time to slowly ramp up the production of cleaner vehicles. At the same time, they introduced standards that reduced both CO2 emissions and consumers’ fuel costs by increasing efficiency within the physical limits of traditional internal combustion engines.
Understanding the impact
Phase Three standards are heavily influenced by the rapid uptake of electric vehicles. Recent innovations in electric vehicle technology and the record federal investments in EV infrastructure in the 2021 infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act make the ambitious new standards a viable goal.
The EPA estimates that Phase Three standards could save 7.3 billion tons of CO2 emissions from light duty vehicles between 2027 and 2055 and avoid 1.8 billion tons of CO2 from heavy-duty vehicles through 2055. That’s the equivalent of eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the entire current U.S. transportation sector for an entire year. Overall, the EPA estimates that the value of benefits, such as improved health outcomes and mitigated emissions, would exceed total costs by at least $1 trillion over the course of its existence. These improvements could only be made possible through widespread adoption and production of electric and other zero-emission vehicles, which the rule functionally requires.
The ongoing electrification transition is an opportunity to make equitable investments across all communities. You can take a look at our vision for America’s electric future in Sparking Progress, our report produced in collaboration with the Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE).
Let EPA know if you support cleaner vehicles
Despite the benefits these changes could bring to the nation’s overall health, air quality, climate, and communities disadvantaged by heavy-duty vehicle emissions, some powerful interests oppose the new rule. In May, 151 members of the majority party in the US House of Representatives signed on to a letter to denounce the new standards. Later, on June 7, 2023, Florida Senator Marco Rubio sent a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission referencing the rule and arguing, contrary to the evidence, that EVs could pose a threat to the electric grid.
These attacks on clean air come at a crucial time, as the EPA is seeking comment on the rule through July 5, 2023. A strong tailpipe emissions rule, coupled with our recommendations to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the Driving Down Emissions report, could be a powerful force to combat climate change and increase the efficiency of the transportation system.
Minnesota made waves last week by passing a landmark transportation spending bill that will fund transit expansions and passenger rail service while reducing transportation emissions. The law, which was passed by razor-thin margin, serves as a blueprint for transformative transportation legislation.
Master class in political will
Minnesota passed ambitious climate goals in 2007, as many states were doing during that era. But as with other states, Minnesota had a difficult time following through with concrete actions to meet those goals.
But far from giving up or taking half-measures, Minnesota legislators are willing to risk their seats to make big moves. For example, Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic prepared and executed an extensive legislative agenda that included a law to move Minnesota to 100 percent clean energy by 2040. That bill provided transportation champions enough momentum to pass other transformational changes, including a new transportation funding agreement passed last week.
This rare, fast-moving legislative push was made possible by the work of advocacy groups like Move Minnesota. Even when there was no hope of passing things like transit funding and limits on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), they worked with climate-forward legislators to draft, refine, and advocate for the provisions that eventually made their way into this law. They encouraged legislators to start from a vision for what the future of transportation can look like and work from there, rather than start from a dollar figure. Then during the 2023 legislative session, they organized a diverse group of transit users and supporters to testify at Transit Equity Day-themed hearings in both the House and the Senate. This was a crucial move in building momentum for this law, bringing in the voices of educators, students, cultural and faith leaders, economic development advocates, transit service providers and union leaders, mobility and disability justice advocates, bikers, elected officials, and both local and national environmental and transportation policy experts.
Not only did Minnesota legislators lap other states that call climate a priority, but they did it with the slimmest of majorities: one seat in the Senate and six in the House. There was strong opposition from the minority, which panned the bill as “regressive taxes that hurt lower-income Minnesotans the most.”
The passage of this legislation is a perfect example of why building capacity and investing in champions is a critical step in sparking change.
What’s in the law?
At a glance, the new law passed by the Minnesota legislature provides:
The authority for Metro Transit to deploy non-police personnel to check fares and issue administrative citations.
$195 million to design and build the Northern Lights Express, a new passenger rail route that will operate between the Twin Cities and Duluth.
$150 million to erase a transit funding deficit in the Twin Cities region.
$300 million annually to build out and improve the Twin Cities region’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.
Means-tested tax credits for up to 75 percent of the cost on an electric-assisted bicycle.
$2 million for a pilot program to connect people experiencing homelessness or mental health and addiction issues to social services.
These provisions are funded by:
Increasing Minnesota’s gas tax by 5 cents/gallon by 2027 by indexing it to inflation. This provision will provide stable funding not only to transit and passenger rail, but the entirety of Minnesota’s transportation system.
Increasing the statewide sales tax by 0.25 percent to fund housing programs and projects.
Increasing the sales tax in the Twin Cities region by an additional 0.75 percent.
Imposing a $0.50 fee on deliveries over $100 in value.
It also requires that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) assess proposed highway expansion projects for consistency with their established greenhouse gas reduction goals, specifically by reducing the VMT on Minnesota’s roads. If MnDOT authorizes a project that increases VMT, they will need to offset the increased emissions by linking the project with a portfolio of other projects that reduce VMT by the same amount or more.
While the transit and passenger rail funding provisions are exciting, this portion of the law may have an even greater effect. Many states have passed climate laws, goals, policies, and mandates, but few get at the real drivers of transportation emissions like this new law. In fact, Minnesota and Colorado are now the only two states to enact such rigorous processes to reduce transportation emissions. Some states enact ambitious goals, but fail to follow through.
The actions of Minnesota’s slim majority stand in stark contrast with the 117th congress and Biden administration, who have taken a ham-handed approach to curtailing transportation emissions. Despite passing historic transportation investments through the IIJA, nationwide transportation emissions could still be poised to drastically rise in coming years. And when the Biden administration released a memo that merely suggested transformational change to transportation spending, they quickly cowed to Republican pressure and rescinded it.
Perhaps climate forward legislators in the states, federal government, and even the Biden administration could learn from MN legislators and move forward with transformative climate action.
The Low and No Emission Vehicles (Low No) program saw a big increase in funding in America’s historic infrastructure law, but an outdated and arbitrary requirement is pushing transit agencies toward buses that still pollute. Here’s how Congress and the Federal Transit Administration can avoid locking in emissions for years to come.
While scientists have rung the alarms on climate change for decades, the 2021 infrastructure law is American policymakers’ first significant response. While unfortunately allowing for much climate-damaging investment in highway expansion, the IIJA also invests significantly in public transit systems including $5.5 billion over its five-year appropriation period for the Low or No Emission Vehicle (Low No) program—six times more than the program’s previous five years of funding. As the title suggests, the Low No program helps transit agencies transition their fleets to low- and zero-emission buses. Additionally, the IIJA provided nearly $2 billion in funding over five years for the closely-related Bus and Bus Facilities Program. While these programs are record-breaking for their level of investments in clean buses and supporting infrastructure, this legislation has flaws that are holding the nation back from cleaning up the bus fleet.
In October of 2022, Transportation for America filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a synthesis of all applications submitted to the Low No and Bus and Bus Facilities programs in fiscal year 2022 (FY22). We wanted to better understand how the programs are serving U.S. transit agencies’ needs and supporting America’s climate goals and emission reduction efforts. What we found was worrying.
As we wrote in Greener Fleets, a white paper we’ve submitted to Congressional leaders, we found that the program encourages transit agencies to buy diesel hybrid and compressed natural gas (CNG) buses instead of zero-emission buses running on electricity or hydrogen. The root cause: 25 percent of the Low No program’s funding is reserved for low-emission (as opposed to zero-emission) projects. This is artificially constraining the supply of zero-emission funds, locking in unnecessary transit emissions for decades.
Low No is coming up short
Applications for grants in FY22 for zero-emission projects of the Low No and Bus and Bus Facilities programs were in extremely high demand, composing 86 percent of the combined two programs’ grant requests.
The Bus and Bus Facilities program does not place constraints on fuel types when considering awards, focusing on the applicant’s project rating (Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended). Still, as shown in the graph below, zero-emission projects had a one in six chance of being awarded while consuming 83 percent of the program’s available funding.
The strong demand for zero-emission buses and facilities shows that transit agencies have gotten comfortable with relatively new electric and hydrogen bus products and are more ready than ever to invest in the zero-emission transition.
The Low No program is statutorily required to reserve 25 percent of available funds for projects using low-emission fuels, such as CNG, diesel-electric hybrid, and propane. In other words, even though 88 percent of applications were for no-emission buses and facilities, FTA was required to award 25 percent of the funding to more polluting low-emission projects. Due to this requirement, as shown in the graph above, nearly 100 percent of the low-emission projects received an award, while more than two-thirds of clean zero-emission applications were rejected. There weren’t even enough low-emission projects in the application pool to meet the 25 percent requirement.
We were concerned that this funding acceptance rate would encourage American transit agencies to give up competing for zero-emission funds (in extremely high demand), and instead apply for the less competitive low-emission funding. Based on early trends in FY23 applications, our concerns were justified. More transit agencies are competing for low-emission project funding than in FY22, putting them on track to deploy buses that will continue polluting for a decade or more, and slowing the development of an EV transit bus supply chain.
How did the 25 percent requirement come to be?
In 2015, the law that outlined the details of the Low or No Emission Vehicle program was passed by the U.S. Congress and Senate. Senator Toomey of Pennsylvania argued for a mandate to require funds be reserved for low-emission vehicles in the legislation. He successfully included a statutory requirement that 25 percent of the Low No program funding go to projects using low-emission fuels, such as CNG, a key product of Pennsylvania, whose natural gas production is second only to Texas. This statutory requirement to subsidize fossil fuels in an age of energy transition leads the IIJA to invest 1.4 billion over this 5 year authorization period in buses that still pollute.
Change the status quo
The Low No and the Bus and Bus Facilities programs are essential to ensuring American transit agencies can replace their aging bus fleets with low and zero-emission vehicles, and transit agencies are clearly eager to rise to the challenge. Congress can do more to ensure that these programs are working to accomplish emission reduction goals. They could start by eliminating the outdated and arbitrary requirement that 25 percent of Low No funding goes to low-emission vehicles. But they should go further: increasing funding for both programs to meet the overall demand for buses and facilities; creating incentives for both programs to leverage other funding sources; and increasing transparency of the program by making basic application and award information available on FTA’s website and looking for ways to simplify the application process.
Ultimately, Congress and FTA should work together to form a vision for how the Low No and Bus and Bus Facilities programs can support American transit agencies in providing excellent transit service in our communities and converting their operations to zero-emissions rapidly enough to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals and improve air quality in the communities they serve.
A new report shows splitting clean transit funds between zero-emission vs. low-emission is holding U.S. transit agencies back from cleaning up the bus fleet.
WASHINGTON—A new report by Transportation for America (T4A), “Greener Fleets: Meeting the Demand for Clean Transit,” examines the Low or No Emission Vehicle (“Low No”, “5339(c)”) and Buses and Bus Facilities (“5339(b)”) grant programs. The report finds that zero-emission projects were in high demand, representing 95% of Low No funds requested in applications last year, and relatively few project applications were funded. In comparison, low-emission projects made up such a small proportion of applications that nearly all applications were funded with money left over in that category.
Higher demand for zero-emission grants significantly lowered the probability of accessing zero-emission project funds. The report finds that this discrepancy could incentivize transit agencies to change their clean transit plans in favor of low-emission vehicles that still pollute. Click here to read the report, executive summary and access graphics.
“Seeing this kind of demand for electric public transit buses shows that America is ready for mass adoption, and we need to revise these programs to reflect that new reality,” said Chris Rall, outreach director for T4A. “Our number one recommendation to improve the programs is to remove the outdated and arbitrary split between zero- vs. low-emission categories to ensure 100% of the funds find their best use.”
U.S.-based transit fleets compete for Low No program grants to help them transition to the lowest polluting and most energy-efficient transit vehicles. Last year, the program received $1,105,329,750 in funding, of which 25% must go to low-emission buses and facilities such as diesel hybrid buses, compressed natural gas (CNG) buses and fueling infrastructure. The remaining 75% is for using electricity and/or hydrogen as a fuel for zero-emission buses and facilities. The report finds that this 75-25% funding split is unsustainable.
“As an industry leader in clean transit, we see Low No funds as essential for helping transit agencies like ours transition to modern electric buses that deliver service at a lower operational cost with zero tailpipe emissions,” said Corey Aldridge, CEO and General Manager of Mountain Line, Missoula, Montana’s transit agency, which has been transitioning its fixed route fleet to be fully electric since 2017. “The data in this report is intriguing. We encourage the legislature to consider its recommendations. Updates to the program could help fleet managers access the cleanest vehicle technologies that make the most sense for them.”
Using data collected from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the T4A research team analyzed applications submitted by American transit agencies to the Low No and 5339(b) programs funding.
TOP FINDINGS
Overall, transit agency-requested funding exceeded awards by over 4.5 times in the combined programs. Requested zero-emissions project funding made up 86% of all requested funding.
Low-emission projects in the Low No program were so undersubscribed that every low-emission applicant received an award regardless of the project rating (Highly Recommended, Recommended, Not Recommended).
In contrast, applicants with zero-emission projects had only a 33% chance of receiving any funding. In the 5339(b) program their chances were even lower, at just 18%.
“Congress’s goal was not to drive a shift in demand and investment toward low-emission projects at the expense of investments in zero-emission transit,” continued Rall. “This trend could lock transit agencies into more polluting technologies for decades.”
The report concludes that this unbalanced dynamic creates a strong incentive for agencies to avoid applying for zero-emission projects and instead use the Low No program to apply for funding for diesel-electric hybrid buses. This is already evidenced by the fact that applications for low-emission projects are up for the 2023 application window.
Here is a summary of the report’s recommendations for improving the programs:
Eliminate the arbitrary requirement that 25% of Low No funding goes to low-emission vehicles.
Increase funding for both 5339(b) and Low No to meet the overall demand for buses and facilities.
Create incentives for both programs to leverage state, regional, utility, and local funding to encourage applicants to propose zero-emission projects at scale and increase the return on investment.
Reduce the matching funding requirements of Tribes and Justice40 communities.
Increase transparency by making basic application and award information available on the Federal Transit Administration’s website.
Simplify the application process and help agencies understand how to make their applications competitive.
“As the market of zero-emission vehicles grows and changes, so must our programs that support the transition,” said Rall. “The increased demand for zero-emission projects is a good thing. We can update these programs to make them better for transit agencies that want to save money and clean up their air.”
“The Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District has stepped out as a leader in transitioning to zero emission vehicles. Our hydrogen fuel cell electric buses run on hydrogen that we produce on-site utilizing 100% renewable solar energy, said Karl Gnadt, managing director for Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD). “The remainder of our fleet is made up completely of hybrid buses so we have long appreciated the value of low emission vehicles as well. However, as zero emission technologies advance, we believe it is time to focus on a national transition to zero emission buses. Removing the dedicated low emission set aside within the Lo-No grant program will allow the program to be more responsive to transit’s needs.”
As the Biden administration invests in transportation electrification, the Twin Cities’ electric carshare program serves as a model for supporting the electric vehicle transition in a way that delivers affordable access to EVs for more people.
With continued federal incentives for electric vehicles and funding to build out the charger network, you would think this would be the perfect time to buy an electric car. However, pandemic-related supply chain challenges and inflation have driven the cost of new and used cars higher than ever. For many people, especially those in communities that have already historically experienced disinvestment, this presents yet another barrier to benefiting from federal investment in electric transportation.
The Twin Cities have found a way around this problem. It’s called Evie Carshare.
Evie is a point-to-point carshare program in Minneapolis and Saint Paul powered by renewable electricity. It’s a public-private partnership between the two cities, HOURCAR, Xcel Energy, East Metro Strong, and the American Lung Association. Evie currently has a fleet of 101 electric vehicles and a network of 71 charging stations and is still growing. It launched in February before funding started flowing from the 2021 infrastructure law.
The Evie Carshare program kills way more than two birds with one stone. Unlike programs that just invest in charging infrastructure or EV purchase incentives, this program addresses some of the fundamental challenges with the transition to electric vehicles:
Affordability. For people who cannot afford a car, Evie Carshare provides access to a car for those trips that really require one, even if most of the time you get around by transit, walking or biking. That not only benefits folks who cannot afford a car, but provides an option that could make it easier for a household to go car-free or cut down on the number of cars, freeing up income for other things.
The program just released a six-month report showing strong usage as the system grows. In its first six months, Evie Carshare has supported over 24 thousand trips, saving an estimated $2.5 million for users. It’s estimated that 33 percent of those savings were attributable to very low income households.
“At a time of high car and gas prices, people need options. This strong usage shows Evie Carshare is meeting a need,” said Will Schroeer, executive director of the public-private partnership East Metro Strong, a T4America member.
Supporting other modes of travel. We know that electrifying transportation is essential but insufficient to meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets. Transportation options that reduce the need to drive help us get there and also deliver equity, health, and economic benefits. On a macro-level, carshare can support vibrant, walkable cities. Studies estimate that a shared car replaces 5 to 15 personally owned vehicles. That means fewer parking lots and fewer cars on the road, leaving more space for homes, parks, and infrastructure for walking, biking, and transit. According to the six-month report, Evie Carshare has already cut an estimated 741 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
Staying charged. Evie Carshare is a hybrid station-based free-floating service with charging stations located across the service area. Carshare users can start and end a trip anywhere in the 35-square mile service area; plugging the car in at a charging station at the end of your trip earns you credit. Each charging location has spots for carshare vehicles and public charging as well.
The public chargers in the network create yet another benefit: public charging access close to apartment buildings where EV owners may lack access to at-home charging. That’s likely to make EV ownership more feasible for more otherwise gasoline-fueled car drivers, particularly those on more modest incomes. Charging logistics are cited as a key barrier for people not yet committed to purchasing an EV.
As the Biden administration’s Joint Office on Energy and Transportation rolls out $2.5 billion in community charging grants over the next five years, Evie stands out as a model for investing in a ways that can accelerate the EV transition and support the administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which aims to direct 40 percent of the benefits of federal clean energy investments to disadvantaged communities.
If you live in the Twin Cities and you are thinking of buying an EV for your next car, Evie provides an opportunity to try them out and see how you like them. Surveys show that the more experience someone has with EVs, the more likely they are to choose an EV for their next vehicle purchase. Encouraging people to switch over to EVs is great. But with a carshare program and quality transit, biking, and walking options, many Evie users may learn they don’t need to purchase a car after all, which is even better.
10/14 Update: Comments are now closed. More than 60,000 comments on a new rule to measure greenhouse gases from transportation were submitted to USDOT during a comment period that closed on 10/13. Comments in favor outweighed those opposed by more than 3,000 to 1.If the Biden administration moves forward, this new rule could reestablish sunlight and accountability for transportation’s impact on climate change. Here’s what’s next for the proposed measure.
Note 10/24: The FHWA’s final count of comments and submissions is 62,319, but some submissions included more than one comment, which means the actual number of comments is likely higher. A coalition of advocates determined that over 100,000 comments were submitted in favor of the rule.
States were recently granted a historic amount of federal transportation funds, which provides a great deal of flexibility in how states can use their funds. Even though transportation is the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, states currently have no requirement to track their projects’ impacts on transportation climate emissions. The proposed GHG emissions measure would reestablish this requirement, previously rolled back under the Trump administration, and help states and MPOs take climate concerns into account in their spending decisions.
Black and brown communities are disproportionately impacted by climate change, and the Biden administration set a goal to advance environmental justice. Justice40 aims to deliver 40 percent of the benefits of federal climate and clean energy investments to communities of color. (For more information about Justice40, read our past blog post.) However, without any sort of tracking in place at the state level for GHG emissions, any Justice40 benefits for marginalized communities could be dwarfed by the consequences of unchecked emissions levels rising overall.
So far, the rule is experiencing a wave of support from advocates, organizations, concerned citizens, and even state DOTs.
However, once comments close, the Biden administration will have to decide what happens next.
Many states are willing and prepared to take on the urgency of the moment. We wrote last month that 24 states and the District of Columbia already have emissions tracking rules in place, some that are more aggressive than what the federal government is proposing. In addition, the FHWA can and should commit to providing tools and best practices to states and MPOs to help them meet their GHG reduction targets. The USDOT can also shed more light on state emissions by providing accessible, user-friendly data for state and regional policymakers, whose job is to ensure that state transportation decisions align with voters’ priorities.
Urgency is needed. The reestablishment of this commonsense measure was one of the first actions we called on the Biden administration to take when they took office. It has been a long time coming, and we are pleased to see an end in sight. Now the administration must be careful not to delay the rule further. The federal funds granted under the 2021 infrastructure law have already started flowing into states’ hands, and shovels are hitting the ground. States are currently making decisions about long-term transportation projects that could make emissions worse. To set them up for success, the administration should finalize the rule quickly and require states’ GHG targets be set within 6 months of the final rule. Failure to act will only move the administration further from its goals and our country further from reducing transportation impacts on climate change.
Last month, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) proposed a new rule that will require states to measure and set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with highways. This is a critical tool to foster accountability and steer infrastructure investments toward better climate outcomes. It’s essential for the USDOT to finalize this rule and for states to lead the way in realizing its full potential.
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure (GGEM), would require state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions tied to highways on the National Highway System (i.e. Interstates and US Routes). This proposal is a key action that Evergreen, Transportation for America, and other advocates have called for. Because the transportation sector emits more greenhouse gas pollution than any other sector of the American economy, data collected from this measure will be a vital tool to support investments in alternative transportation modes, better protect disadvantaged communities, and advance President Biden’s climate goals.
Following the enactment of the critical climate and infrastructure investments contained in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress and the Biden administration must each play a role in ensuring that these resources are implemented effectively and equitably. At the same time, increased ambition at the state level and bold executive action are essential in order to attain further emissions reductions. New federal rules that enable states to push the envelope are needed to tackle the largest sources of climate pollution, and that includes our transportation sector.
So what is this rule all about?
In 2012 Congress passed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), a two-year transportation authorization bill following nearly 3 years of stop-gap extensions. MAP-21 represented a tentative step towards accountability for the billions of dollars the federal government allocates to states every year for transportation, by codifying seven different performance categories for federal highway programs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) created performance measures and subsequently required state DOTs to set performance targets aligned with these goals.
But a new and improved version of this measure is back, under the Biden administration. In early July, the FHWA proposed a new draft rule for a GGEM that would establish a method for state DOTs to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than a one-size-fits-all target set by the USDOT, states would be permitted to set their own unique declining targets that collectively lead the US towards net-zero emissions by 2050. Critically, the draft GGEM rule would require these targets to continuously decrease, to cut emissions over time in each state. The proposal is a big step forward from the status quo, but still limited in scope. For example, states face no penalties for failing to meet their established targets.
Here are the four actions the Biden administration and state DOTs must take for this proposal to be successful:
1. The Biden administration must finalize a strong performance measure rule ASAP
While the IIJA is not a transformative climate bill, states have a wide berth in deciding how to allocate formula funding under IIJA. The law also establishes new categories of climate mitigation funding, like the Carbon Reduction Program, and expands the kinds of investments eligible under legacy programs like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. In short, governors and state governments will determine, through the decisions they make about what to build, whether or not the IIJA leads to reductions in climate pollution. However, without the proposed rule, the public has no way to hold states accountable for reducing emissions with the windfall of infrastructure money from the IIJA.
Right now, the FHWA has opened a public comment period for the proposed rule through October 13, 2022. Just like in 2017, this rule is already meeting fierce resistance, from both industry and Senate Republicans.
Some stakeholders are falsely claiming that this proposed rulemaking is outside the scope of the performance measures set forth by Congress in MAP-21. Many congressional leaders who were involved in passing that legislation have set the record straight, emphasizing that this proposal will “fulfill the original congressional intent…” There is plenty of flexibility for states built into the existing rule and the Biden administration must finalize a strong performance measure.
2. The Biden administration should factor in state performance when evaluating other competitive grant programs, and FHWA should improve its performance dashboard
Although most federal transportation funding is formula-based, the USDOT can influence policy significantly through discretionary funds like the Secretary’s RAISE grants or the Reconnecting Communities Program. To ensure the greenhouse gas performance measure doesn’t just “sit on the shelf,” the department should assess the relative ambitions of state greenhouse gas reduction targets and progress states achieve as it awards competitive funds. The Biden administration should also incorporate implementation of the measure into criteria for new programs created by the Inflation Reduction Act, including the Neighborhood Access and Equity grant program and the EPA’s new Climate Pollution Reduction grants.
Moreover, because of the non-binding nature of the performance measure proposed, it’s essential that the emissions data and targets of each state are properly advertised and disseminated. This will allow the data to facilitate increased accountability. Right now, the FHWA’s dashboard for state performance data is buried on its website and the information is not frequently discussed or publicized. Going forward, the FHWA and the Office of the Secretary should reinvigorate the dashboard and regularly update stakeholders and the broader public regarding the progress states are making in setting and reaching their declining targets.
3. States should incorporate performance measures in state policy and go beyond USDOT’s proposal
Washington State’s Move Ahead Washington program invests in public transportation and other sustainable travel options. Flickr photo by SounderBruce
Because the targets required by the draft GGEM would be non-binding, it will ultimately be up to states to make their greenhouse gas targets meaningful in a local context. Going forward, states must better prioritize climate in transportation policy and funding decisions. Many states are already measuring greenhouse gas pollution in the transportation sector in some capacity and tailoring their long-range plans, short-term capital plans, and overall investment strategies accordingly. The following model policies should be considered as states move forward with accessing IIJA/IRA funding and implementing the performance measure.
Colorado: The Colorado Transportation Commission recently approved a new rule that will set mandatory greenhouse gas reduction goals for each MPO. These goals must be incorporated into investments identified in each region’s short and long-term transportation plans. The regional goals can be achieved by reprioritizing planned projects or investing in new mitigation strategies. In most cases, this will mean shifting investments away from the construction and expansion of highways and towards public transit and improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Minnesota: Even as demand for electric vehicles has grown and the Biden administration acts to raise fuel efficiency standards for cars, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States continue to increase. States have a tremendous opportunity to act where the federal government has not and institute policies that tackle auto dependency. Minnesota recently adopted a statewide goal to reduce VMT statewide by 20 percent by 2050. More states need to look beyond electric vehicles and work towards shifting travel towards the most sustainable and equitable modes of transportation.
Washington: Washington State DOT is not waiting for the federal government and has already implemented a performance measure for greenhouse gas pollution associated with the National Highway System infrastructure inside the state. Emissions and targets are reported to the federal government biennially. Earlier this year, Washington also enacted Move Ahead Washington, a significant transportation funding package that invests heavily in public transportation and other sustainable modes aimed at reducing car travel.
4. States should implement an equity-first approach to meeting targets
States will have significant discretion when deciding how and where to spend transportation-related IIJA funds, and they should ensure they deploy federal funds with a focus on communities that are already impacted by transportation planning and pollution. Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities suffer the most from vehicle pollution and are historically least likely to receive government investments. By prioritizing these underserved and overburdened communities, states can ensure they are supporting their most vulnerable populations while reducing pollution.
Additionally, state policymakers need to pay careful attention to wealth disparities between white users of the transportation system and people of color, which impact both mode choice and job access. States should consider new incentives for used electric vehicles to supplement the credit for used vehicles contained in the Inflation Reduction Act, and also need to take significant steps to build out networks of Complete Streets and make public transportation more reliable and affordable. Finally, state departments of transportation should prioritize investments that begin repairing past racist policy decisions that were meant to intentionally divide neighborhoods.
Key takeaway
The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the United States. Because most transportation investment decisions are made at the state level, the USDOT’s new Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure is a critical tool to foster accountability and steer infrastructure investments away from expanding highways and towards vehicle electrification, public transportation, and improvements for other sustainable modes of travel like biking and walking. It’s essential for the USDOT to finalize this rule and for states to lead the way in realizing its full potential.
High gas prices put pressure on many Americans’ finances. Unfortunately, the cost of gas depends on a variety of factors, and there’s no silver bullet. Focusing on ineffective short-term solutions can often distract from the long-term problem: when the places we live are designed only for car travel (and longer trips), Americans are forced to pay the cost.
The cost of gas in Aptos, CA climbed above six dollars in March of 2022. Prices are continuing to rise. Photo from Flickr/rulenumberone2.
Gas prices have been rising throughout the year, nearing an all-time inflation-adjusted US high. Millions of Americans who rely on a vehicle for essential trips also may depend on low gas prices to make ends meet. Under pressure, state and federal legislators are trying to find ways to drive down the price, including passing gas tax holidays and proposing a federal price gouging bill. However, a variety of factors influence gas prices, and these legislative efforts have little chance of stemming the tide. Gas tax holidays are a particularly shortsighted choice. They threaten funding for needed infrastructure projects, many of which could ultimately alleviate pain at the pump.
Electric vehicles can’t be the sole answer to this problem either, because the issues that come up when people have to drive everywhere, even for the shortest trips, aren’t limited to the cost of fuel. All that driving takes up valuable time. Cars take up space on the road, which turns into traffic, making travel last even longer. It’s expensive to purchase and maintain a car, and when people have to own cars to travel, those who can’t afford one or are unable to drive one are left stranded. (We wrote about some of these issues in our report Driving Down Emissions.)
Regardless of the cost of gas, it’s never been cheap or convenient to rely solely on driving for daily travel. Whether electric or gas-powered, cars are expensive, and Americans have to drive them further than ever just to access their daily needs—Americans in the biggest metro areas are driving 20 percent more per day than three decades ago.
While gas tax holidays will fail to provide significant relief (and cut revenues for roads and bridges in the process), there are enough other organizations and economists and elected leaders trying to figure out short-term solutions for these historically high prices. We’re taking the long view.
Last year’s infrastructure law, a historic investment in our nation’s transportation system, could provide longer lasting solutions for struggling travelers who need to save time and money at the pump.
When people live in walkable, multimodal places (of nearly any size) where destinations are located closer together, they can walk, roll, or take the bus to get to work, school, and the grocery store. As gas prices rose, people in these sorts of places, whether affluent or lower-income, were fortunate enough to be able to take much shorter trips by car or switch to other modes of travel. In doing so, they avoided some of the rising cost of car travel, even if they occasionally drove.
After 2008, the last time gas prices rose, we had a similar opportunity to make lasting changes to our infrastructure. Demand rose for alternative modes of travel, especially in areas that already had long-established alternate options. If we had invested in multimodal transportation, we’d be in a very different situation today. But we didn’t—and this is where we ended up.
Because much of the funding in the infrastructure law is flexible, we can use it to give travelers more choices. Or we can further entrench ourselves in a system that requires more driving, more pollution, and more unexpected costs. Those choices will be up to states and metro areas as they decide how to invest these funds.
To really address the climbing cost of car travel, state DOTs and metro areas need to make sound infrastructure investments. If they merely use the infrastructure law to supercharge their existing work to prioritize speedy, long-distance travel at the expense of shorter trips via a range of modes, we’ll be right back in this mess the next time gas prices rise. When that time comes, we’ll know who deserves at least some of the blame.
Though distinctly not serious about fighting climate change, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, the infrastructure law) can still help lead to some decent climate outcomes if states and metro areas make the choice to prioritize doing so with their flexible funding.
This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.
The most recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change warns us that even with the most aggressive emissions reduction strategies, global warming will more than likely exceed 1.5°C in the near term. So emissions reduction strategies that can prevent even more destructive consequences from greater global warming are urgently needed, but we also need to prepare our communities for the disastrous effects of climate change that are already hitting much of the country.
That is why this post will focus on how the federal government and its state and local grant recipients can use money from the infrastructure law to:
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, and
make our transportation infrastructure, especially in our most vulnerable communities, adaptive and resilient to the all-but-inevitable effects of global climate change.
Both of these strategies are essential to reach the Biden administration’s climate goals and save Americans from the worst of climate change.
Emissions reduction
How and where the infrastructure law money is spent will have a massive impact on whether it is able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the bill’s separate $46+ billion dedicated toward resiliency and new climate-focused programs outlined below, states and metro areas are free to spend much of the law’s $650 billion in surface transportation money on climate-friendly projects like transit, active transportation, or repair, thanks to the broad flexibility built into the law. But it could just as well be spent on expanding roadways, inducing more demand for driving and thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
It all comes down to what states choose to prioritize, and how they direct their money. Here’s what we mean, via two potential future scenarios of IIJA spending, courtesy of the Georgetown Climate Center (GCC):
In the high-emissions scenario (left), highway expansion outpaces highway repair, encouraging yet more driving and doubling down on a system where a car is required just to participate in the economy. But the low-emissions scenario (right) heavily prioritizes repair and shifts five percent of funds toward transit, providing room for communities to provide for multimodal accessibility and move away from a dependence on cars. (According to the GCC, our recent spending/priorities are somewhere in between these two scenarios.) Both scenarios are legal and valid uses of infrastructure law money, but represent two radically different spending approaches.
But only one of these scenarios will bring a net decrease in transportation emissions:
The change in transportation emissions over the next 20 years, with zero representing the levels we were set to hit without the new infrastructure law. The vertical axis is measured in cumulative million metric tons (MMT) of CO2. Analysis and chart by the Georgetown Climate Center
When one-tenth of a degree of warming could make the difference in extreme weather events, the difference between these two scenarios is massive. Especially when the GCC’s model predicts that the high-emissions scenario would in fact substantially increase emissions above where we would be without the infrastructure law.1
Each of the largest formula grant programs (like the NHPP and STBG) and every other program with broad eligibility can and should be used to reduce emissions by enabling modes of travel other than cars.In fact, most of the infrastructure law’s funding could be marshaled toward either of the scenarios, so we will not list every specific program in this post. Check out our IIJA hub for guides on how to make sure the low-emissions scenario wins out, category by category. But three climate-focused programs are worth noting:
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program: This formula grant program is funded annually at about $2.6 billion (up from $2.4 billion) and can be used for a wide range of projects that reduce congestion and therefore air quality. The IIJA allows states to spend CMAQ funds for operating public transit and shared micromobility, including bike share and shared scooter systems, as well as for the purchase of medium- or heavy-duty zero emission vehicles and related charging equipment.
The Carbon Reduction Program: States receive more money overall under the IIJA, but this new program requires them to set aside about 2.56 percent of their total apportionment toward reducing transportation emissions. There is a loophole, though: states can redirect this money into their highly flexible STBG funds if the Secretary certifies that the state has reduced transportation emissions on a per capita and per unit of economic output basis. (More about fixing this loophole under “what the administration can do” below.) Of the new carve-out, 65 percent of the program’s funds are to be allocated by population in the state, whereas the remaining 35 percent is at the discretion of states. For areas with populations over 200,000, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) administers that 65 percent local share of program funding for eligible projects. These can include planning, designing, and building on- and off-road active transportation facilities and improvements to the roadway right-of-way to facilitate reductions in transportation emissions and congestion.
Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities Program: This new discretionary grant program, funded at $400 million over five years, will be distributed to America’s ports so they can invest in technology and operational efficiencies to reduce emissions from idling trucks. They can also use the money to electrify their operations and conduct the required workforce development and training therein.
Adaptation and resilience
Catastrophic hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, and other extreme weather events devastating American communities have become more frequent due to climate change and will happen more often as global warming worsens. So while we reduce emissions, we must also work to protect people from these events, with a focus on the disproportionate impact of climate-related disasters and public health hazards (like urban heat islands) on marginalized communities. The kinds of adaptation and resilience resources outlined below should focus first and foremost on these communities. The EPA’s action on clean water justice is a good model for environmental justice in climate resilience.
The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), which accounts for over half of all Highway Trust Fund formula program spending, expanded its mission to address resilience, clearing the way to use these highway dollars to upgrade or repair existing assets to make them more resilient. It is still only an option on a menu of uses, but advocates can now pressure states to use NHPP funding for this newly stated purpose: “mitigate the cost of damages from sea level rise, extreme weather events, flooding, wildfires, or other natural disasters.”
The most direct funding mechanism for adaptation and resilience is the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) Program. Split between competitive and formula grants, the program is designed to help communities anticipate, prepare for, and adapt their transportation systems to natural disasters. The $7.3 billion (over five years) formula portion can be used by states and MPOs to build more resilient roads, transit, or ports, such as through the elevation or hardening of key infrastructure, as well as adjacent infrastructure like flood gates and culverts. The competitive grants, funded at $1.4 billion over the next five years, can be used for many of the same purposes, with more of a focus on access to services and evacuation routes.
The Healthy Streets Program is a competitive grant program that dedicates $100 million a year (subject to annual appropriations) to address the urban heat island effect. Local, regional, tribal, and state governments can apply for funding to make improvements to tree canopies, porous pavement, and other cooling projects.
Many states like Rhode Island have found federal flood mapping inadequate to capture evolving risk, so the law provides the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with $492 million to develop improved flood mapping and water modeling which could inform critical areas for future resilience investment. This will improve existing resources like the Sea Level Rise Viewer (which you should check out if you have not).
Finally, USDOT will provide for the establishment of 10 regional Centers of Excellence for Resilience and Adaptation and one national Center of Excellence for Resilience and Adaptation, each receiving $5 million annual grants to research resilience and adaptation technology, support data collection, and develop new approaches to keeping our communities safe.
How else could the administration advance our climate goals?
Other than prioritizing projects that do the most to lower emissions when awarding competitive grants, the Biden administration can pull a couple other administrative levers to make sure that federal action is oriented toward a lower-emission future.
As noted above about the Carbon Reduction Program, the Secretary of Transportation can allow states to divert CRP money to their highly flexible STBG pot, likely resulting in projects that will lead to much higher transportation emissions. So USDOT needs to codify strict guidelines for determining sufficient emissions reductions before allowing states to shift these funds—protecting against a future administration allowing states to fund projects that do not actually lower emissions.
Any efforts to address climate change should focus on those who are and will be most burdened by its effects. Some essential steps include focusing on communities with a history of underinvestment, addressing comorbidities like asthma and heart disease, and accounting for flooding vulnerabilities in marginalized communities (and conversely, climate change-induced gentrification in marginalized communities). The administration should continue to push guidance to include those strategies in formula and discretionary grant distribution.
USDOT should require clearer and more robust data for the public on transportation emissions. For one, induced demand should be included in transportation growth modeling. Also, USDOT should track transportation emissions per capita by state and publish results and trends online. They should include emissions reduction from the system, not just vehicles.
So what?
Many of the Biden administration’s most serious emissions reduction policies were in the (stalled) Build Back Better Act, but the future of that bill is uncertain and advocates should continue to push for emissions-slashing transportation policies not only at the federal level, but state, regional, and local level.
The infrastructure law largely gives states the flexibility to do what they like with climate-related money. So now, the onus of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and making our communities more resilient falls to states and localities. Whether you are a planner, a legislator, an advocate, or a concerned citizen, now is the time to raise the alarm and make sure infrastructure money is spent in a way that minimizes the impact of climate change on American communities.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Flickr/Creative Commons of a Metro Transit METRO C Line bus photo by Tony Webster. https://www.flickr.com/photos/diversey/49040491042.
Greater transit use is key for lowering emissions, and cities across America are reconsidering how they serve their residents with public transit—and the land uses that encourage better service and ridership. Several cities are laying the groundwork to make this happen—even outside of the “transit hotspots” one may expect.
This post was written by T4America policy intern Jackson Pierce. This post is the third in a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here.
In our first and second installments of this series, we showed how proper funding for transit operations and for increasing transit access are a one-two punch that makes transit more useful, lessening the need to drive and in turn lowering emissions. The historic influx of transit funding coming from the infrastructure bill provides an opportunity to better connect people to the jobs and services they need while reducing climate impacts. These improvements will also help address equity concerns by providing better quality service to more people who urgently need it. In our third installment, we highlight how Houston, Columbus, Austin, and Minnesota’s Twin Cities have made strides toward better service and smarter planning by focusing on providing better transit access to adapt today’s limited funding to existing infrastructure.
Houston and Columbus rescued their bus systems from low ridership by starting fresh
Houston—with a population ranked 4th in the nation by city proper, 5th by immediate metro area and 9th by expanded metro area—is infamous for its wide highways, sprawling cityscape, poor walking infrastructure in many areas, and nearly ubiquitous accommodation of the motor vehicle. Yet Houston has also become a public transit leader by significantly redesigning its bus service from the ground up in 2015 to focus on giving as many people as possible access to frequent, high quality transit, with help from transit consultants Jarrett Walker & Associates.
Houston is recognized as a leader for good reason. The city redrew its former bus network from scratch, allowing METRO (the city’s transit agency) to consolidate redundant routes into more frequent, centralized patterns that served population centers more often.
Houston’s frequent bus routes before and after the redesign.
On August 15th, 2015, a network of mostly infrequent bus routes converged downtown, which was not where most bus riders needed to go in the very decentralized metro area. On August 16th, these same buses ran on a brand-new network, a grid of 22 frequent routes that allowed access to multiple spread-out dense activity centers and neighborhoods. It was a transformation that required no new resources (outside of signage and wayfinding changes), just a smarter approach that recognized the city’s changing development patterns. (Read Smart Growth America’s longer 2015 profile of this story, just before the changes went into effect, which details the planning and work that went into it.)
There are a few things worth recognizing when discussing the replicability of Houston’s plan in other cities. Houston’s old network had clear redundancy in its routes. In other cities these routes may not exist, or have been cut in the past, so a comparable result to Houston’s “cost-neutral” solution may require greater investment overall or adding more resources elsewhere. Houston is also anchored by the Red Line, one of the most successful modern light rail projects in the country, and having that service as a network cornerstone bolstered METRO’s ridership on both modes.
While Houston is a popular example of a completely redesigned network, the idea has been successfully replicated at smaller scales.
By Ɱ – CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=89607531
Columbus: Before Columbus redesigned its routes in 2017, for example, their bus map had been largely unchanged since 1974—even though the region had become one of the fastest-growing in the country. COTA (the Central Ohio Transit Authority) didn’t have the fleet size or duplicative routes that Houston’s METRO did, but managed to add seven frequent routes to their previous total of three, including two new crosstown routes that matched the city’s multi-centered development patterns.
Equity was a major concern during Columbus’ route redesign, leading Columbus to emphasize improving the frequency of their routes on weekends. Columbus also introduced their CMAX rapid bus line in 2018. While not “true” bus rapid transit—lacking dedicated lanes, off-board fare payment, and frequent headways on weekends—it still provides a solid anchor service for COTA’s other routes to feed into.
Frequent routes on COTA before and after the update.
Despite a nationwide decrease in transit ridership in the 2010s, Houston and Columbus both grew their ridership with their redesigns. Within a year of opening Houston saw a six percent growth in system ridership, and before the pandemic, Columbus’ ridership was up four percent overall since the 2017 redesign. This occurred because both cities updated their transit network to match changes in development patterns, improving transit access in the process.
In Austin, a strong baseline is paying off
CC photo of an Austin bus by I-ride capital metro on Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/i-ride/5179709865/
Austin’s population has nearly doubled from 2000-2020 and its transportation systems are struggling to keep up, but the region’s major transit agency, Capital Metro, is working its way toward an accessible and intuitive system.
In 2010 Austin launched Capital Metrorail, a 32-mile commuter rail line that failed to draw significant riders, because it runs infrequently and misses much of the city’s density. To address that gap, in 2014, Capital Metro launched MetroRapid, a rapid bus system (similar to Columbus’ CMAX) featuring two lines making limited stops along some of the city’s main north-south corridors, hitting the neighborhoods that Metrorail missed, including the downtown core, south Austin, and the University of Texas. And in 2018, Capital Metro also embarked upon a full bus network redesign, which they dubbed “CapRemap.”
Austin’s current high frequency transit network.
CapRemap followed the principles of Houston and Columbus’ work, achieving similar results. A year after CapRemap’s release, the total bus system’s ridership had increased by about 4 percent and MetroRapid’s increase was about 6 percent—indicating that improving the grid of routes that increase accessibility across the city also strengthens the core of the system. Capital Metro also introduced new standards of mapping and signage that make Austin’s buses easier to use and navigate.
These improvements contributed to the success of a ballot initiative in November 2020 for the agency’s much more ambitious $7 billion ProjectConnect plan (click to see a map.) At the center of that plan are two light rail lines, which largely follow the current MetroRapid routes, paired with the introduction of new MetroRapid upgrades for some of the busiest existing bus routes. ProjectConnect is evidence that a well-planned baseline system will grow public support for more substantial infrastructure through incremental upgrades.
The Twin Cities are focused on serving corridors with the highest driving demand
Compared to the prior examples, Minnesota’s Twin Cities are taking a more incremental and perhaps unconventional approach to transit improvement and network strengthening. Like in Houston, many of the region’s main activity centers—like downtown Minneapolis, downtown St. Paul and suburban Bloomington—are connected by well-used local light rail services, which are reinforced by a grid of crosstown bus routes. Sixteen of these bus routes run every 15 minutes or better on corridors that are highly traveled but do not need the level of capacity that rail provides, and the region’s transit agency, Metro Transit, sees this network as a key to improving access throughout the region.
The A Line and C Line are currently operating as “backbone” routes of the bus network, with three more (F, G, and H) prioritized for near-term service frequency upgrades in the agency’s 2021 Network Next plan. This plan, set to be updated every five years, is centered around making data-driven, equitable decisions that improve speed and reliability.
Metro Transit is also working to better integrate local buses into its larger regional bus network, branded with colors, which operates partially on major freeways. The Orange Line, which just opened in December 2021, travels in dedicated high-occupancy toll lanes southward from downtown along Interstate 35W, one of the region’ busiest freeways. Unlike some freeway express routes in other cities, the Orange Line runs in both directions at 15-minute intervals (during weekdays) and serves substantial, accessible modern stations that bridge the gap between the speed of freeway travel and the pedestrian accessibility that serves successful transit. This approach also acknowledges the reality of the region’s multiple centers and serves the places that people are already going by car.
One of the I-35W rapid bus median stations on Metro Transit’s new Orange Line.Photo by Metro Transit.
Final construction of an I-35W rapid bus median station on Metro Transit’s new Orange Line.Photo by Metro Transit.
An early rendering of an I-35W rapid bus median station on Metro Transit’s new Orange Line. Photo by Metro Transit.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Metro Transit became one of a number of agencies to adjust its service to respond to shifting transit needs and provide better access: by lowering fares, providing near-term service to get students to school in the wake of bus driver shortages, and expanding a program to provide targeted transit passes to specific apartment buildings to better meet the needs of residents and actively reduce car-dependence.
The agency’s strategies stem from three principles, according to Metro Transit arterial bus rapid transit manager Katie Roth, who collaborated with T4A in this case study: 1) to meet the market for transit as it stands today, 2) improve the market for transit for the future, and 3) improve access to transit in communities that have historically suffered disinvestment. “This is how we’re going to emerge from the pandemic as a transit system,” she says.
Following traveler demand and creating a reliable all-day network will boost the resilience of neighborhoods around the region, providing a solid foundation to expand upon with their Network Next plan.
What other communities can learn about improving transit access
Making a real impact on our climate will require providing transit that offers a true alternative to driving. While there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer that works for every city and no US city that has fully solved this puzzle, the agencies profiled here have several things in common: they used data to understand service needs and were willing to rethink their route structure—sometimes dramatically—to provide better access for people most reliant on transit and keep up with changing development patterns, often seeing significant increases in ridership as a result.
Unfortunately, no amount of clever service redesign will make up for resources that simply aren’t there, so increasing transit funding must be part of the picture. And even a significant boost in funding won’t be enough to meaningfully improve transit access for all the people who need it in the more sprawling areas of our metro regions, so putting more people in the path of high quality transit by changing local development practices is a critical step on the path to a lower-emissions transportation system.
The Twin Cities region isn’t the only one that has updated its transit service to respond to evolving needs during the pandemic and beyond. In our final post in this series, we will be profiling agencies that have changed their approach during COVID to shift some focus away from traditional 9-to-5 commuters, make transit more affordable, and rethink what the future of transit should look like to reduce emissions and provide access for those who need it most.
Climate funders, electric vehicle industry groups, and environmentalists are rightly confronting the question of how to address equity in the electric vehicle space. They may not like the answer.
Photo by Steve Davis
Converting the transportation fleet to electric vehicles is essential (but not sufficient) for us to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets that can limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis. As the crisis of social justice has also risen to the fore in the past several years, advocates for EVs are rightly looking for ways to address equity in how we deploy electric vehicles.
So how do we bolster equity in a significant way by increasing the adoption of EVs? The hard-to-hear answer is that we don’t. Other strategies must be paired with this transition to ensure that we don’t make existing inequities worse.
Cars are expensive to own and operate, full stop. The infrastructure that serves them is expensive and environmentally damaging, whether they are fueled by gas or electricity. Many people cannot drive due to age or disability. A transportation system in which everyone must drive to reach jobs and services is by definition one that is not equitable because it excludes many people from participating fully. Electric vehicles fail to fix these problems.
Building and maintaining lots of roads also produces significant climate impacts, generating emissions from the resources required and creating heat islands that exacerbate the impact of heat waves. Expanses of asphalt and concrete roads and parking lots also increase stormwater runoff and flooding, and use up a lot of land. Because they are heavier, tire friction from EVs releases even more particulate matter and micro-plastic pollution than equivalent standard cars which already has a disproportionate impact on low-income communities and communities of color.
Subsidies for EV purchase and EV infrastructure—expected to become even more prominent in the years ahead—benefit EV buyers, who skew wealthier and whiter. Cars are so expensive (even more so than a decade ago) that it takes a pretty big incentive to convince many people to switch over, especially lower-income people who are more likely considering a used vehicle if they’re buying one at all.
We do need to transition our vehicle fleet to electric vehicles, but the best way to fundamentally address equity (while also reducing emissions) is to focus on the affordable, healthier transportation options we already know how to provide: expanded public transit service (as we chronicled last week) and more safe streets for more people to walk, bike, and roll. Our Driving Down Emissions report provides the right framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while addressing equity, if equity is really the focus:
The good news is that, when paired with other strategies, we can make a significant dent in the growth of emissions simply by satisfying the pent-up market demand for affordable homes in the kinds of walkable, connected communities where residents drive far less each day than their counterparts in more sprawling locations. And providing these more affordable homes would help make the transition to a lower carbon economy in a way that doesn’t place a heavier burden on those with less means.
EVs, while important for reducing emissions, just aren’t the right arena for tackling transportation equity, which is why it’s so important to pair significant and historic investments in expanded public transit and safe streets along with any investments in the transition to electric vehicles. Improving transportation options will also have positive impacts on public health and the environment in historically marginalized communities, which already deal with staggering levels of pollution from transportation and other sources, as chronicled in last week’s devastating map of industrial pollution from ProPublica.
Having to buy a brand new car isn’t the only way to transition out of an older, gasoline-powered, polluting vehicle—or minimizing their use. Making more trips possible by transit, walking, biking, or rolling would bring significant positive impacts on our climate goals.
In a second post, we’ll take a closer look at some specific ways to ensure that the transition is as equitable as possible.
Even if we hit the most ambitious targets for changing our cars and trucks over to electric vehicles, we will fail to meaningfully reduce emissions from transportation without confronting this simple fact: new roads always produce new driving. This costly feedback loop referred to as “induced demand” is the invisible force short-circuiting the neverending attempts to eliminate congestion by building or expanding roads.
Today, Transportation for America is partnering with RMI and the Natural Resources Defense Council to release a new calculator that shows how highway expansion repeatedly fails to reduce congestion and instead increases traffic and pollution. The SHIFT Calculator provides transparency about new traffic created by highway widening and expansion so transportation agencies can make smarter, more sustainable transportation investments. Read the press release.
Imagine a guy who, struck with a wild but charitable fever of generosity, decided to give away 100 gallons of tasty, free coffee every morning at a small downtown stand. During that entire first week, he struggled to give it all away before lunchtime and went home with quite a few gallons of leftover lukewarm coffee. In week #2, he started seeing familiar faces each day from the nearby buildings, because people walking by know a good deal when they see one (the low price of free!) Many of them returned each day and the coffee was gone by 11 a.m. By the third week, the word was out across downtown about the “crazy free coffee guy” and he started running out earlier each day. By the start of week four, people were coming from all over downtown and he had a line queued up waiting for him at 7 a.m. to ensure they got their free cup before work, and it was all gone before 9 a.m.
Say hello to “induced demand.”
Giving something away for free shapes the behavior of those who want it
It’s a fundamental principle of economics: Provide a tangible good at no cost that people value and the demand will outstrip supply.
Yet political leaders and transportation agencies refuse to believe that this same basic principle will apply when they spend billions to widen or expand highways in the name of “solving” traffic congestion in urban regions, and then give away all of that newly created space for free. They refuse to believe that anyone will take new trips on the newly freed-up highway space, that people will shift existing off-peaks trips to rush hour, that someone on transit might decide to return to driving (like thousands of people did during the pandemic), or that developers might take advantage of the new capacity to build yet more houses or retail on land that’s now more easily accessible.
They refuse to believe that this is possible, even when all of that expensive new highway space fills right up in a short period of time, wiping out any benefits and failing to deliver on all those promises of speedy commutes, improved travel times, and money in our pockets from all the “time savings.”
Attempting to “solve” congestion by building new roads or expanding existing ones has been the animating purpose behind billions of dollars of federal and state transportation investment for decades now.
Armed with this single-minded purpose and billions in no-strings money from the federal government, states have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to widen or build new highways. We built enough new roads and lanes from just 2009-2017 to build a brand new road back and forth across our enormous country 83 times. State transportation departments have added 5,325 new lane-miles just since 2015.
All the lanes we’ve built have led to a predictable increase in driving. From 1980-2017, per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 46 percent. In 1993, on average, each person accounted for 21 miles of driving per day in those 100 urbanized areas. By 2017, that number had jumped to 25 miles per day. Every year, Americans are having to drive farther just to accomplish the same things we did back in 1993 every day.
The problem isn’t too few roads
Delay skyrocketed in our 100 largest urbanized areas from 1993-2017, rising by 144 percent. Yet we expanded our freeway system in those areas by 42 percent, while the population only increased by 32% during that time. We built roads like crazy, yet delay just got worse.
Delay increased because new highways, roads, and lanes are proven to induce more driving, which leads to more emissions and ultimately more congestion. The evidence for induced demand is overwhelming. In a landmark study, Kent Hymel at Cal State Northridge suggests the relationship is perfectly correlated—a 10 percent increase in lane miles leads to a 10 percent increase in driving.
If you’re celebrating the notable but small climate and transit provisions in the current enormous infrastructure deal, you should know that this shortsighted 1950s-style deal will provide states with historic levels of virtually no-strings highway funding that they can continue to blow on the same old bankrupt strategy for congestion without even any basic requirements to repair things first.
Profligate spending on highways also undermines the relatively limited investments being made in other lower emission transportation options like biking, walking, and transit.
Why do transportation agencies deny this reality?
The unreliable models that agencies depend upon have a poor track record of success, but they never look backward to consider their accuracy or how they can be improved. When is a state DOT ever held to account for repeatedly making predictions about traffic that fails to materialize? Who even remembers what they predict? This great thread from Kevin DeGood about Texas DOT’s repeated failure to make accurate predictions shows just how rarely anyone looks backward:
1/ TxDOT is pushing hard to widen I-35 based, in part, on traffic forecasts that show doom and gloom. Reader, you should be deeply skeptical since TxDOT has missed the mark for decades. Let’s take a look. pic.twitter.com/9RxLLGmHrI
19 years ago, the Texas DOT predicted that average daily traffic (ADT) on I-35 through downtown Austin would be 330,000 daily vehicles by last year. The reality wasn’t even close: Actual totals in 2019 were only 201,000 daily trips. As Kevin notes, in 2016, with the state totally ignoring how wildly inaccurate their current projections were turning out to be, they projected “that total VMT on I-35 in the Austin area would increase by 50% by 2040.”
Rinse and repeat.
TxDOT is certainly doing their best to make those 2040 projections come true. All it’s going to cost taxpayers is $5 billion to widen I-35 right through downtown.
If the state follows through on this staggeringly expensive project, they’d be creating millions of new trips and increasing pollution, all while failing to make a dent in congestion over the long term and wiping out hundreds of acres of some of the most valuable land in the entire state.
This data comes from the new SHIFT Calculator’s estimates for the I-35 widening project which would add 42 lane-miles to the interstate through downtown Austin
The cynical answer to “why” is that if state DOTs around the country finally admitted that expansions fail to actually solve congestion, they would lose their #1 strategy of continued expansions that allow everyone other than the taxpayer to make more money. They’d be admitting that they’ve placed all of their bets on a losing horse, and they’ve been doing so for years. On top of that, they’d then have to do far more sophisticated work to better understand the complicated reality of our travel needs and rebuild their models from the ground up to focus on moving people rather than just “make cars go fast.”
Our hope is that advocates, local governments, and anyone who cares about finally getting more accurate and transparent data about increases in driving and pollution will use this new tool to hold their transportation agencies to account. And we want transportation agencies to use it to bring a fuller picture to their current transportation modeling that leads them to “solutions” that fail to address congestion, divide neighborhoods, increase pollution, devastate nearby communities, and fail to meaningfully improve our access to jobs and services.
Find a proposed project in your metro area and run it through the calculator.
Some parts of the above post were adapted from Driving Down Emissions, a report from Smart Growth America and Transportation for America which explores how changing transportation policy and land-use patterns are key to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
