featured Archives - Page 3 of 7 - Transportation For America

Mad Men actors go to bat for high-speed rail in new video

Two lead actors from Mad Men, the 1960s era advertising agency show, appear in a Funnyordie.com video endorsing high-speed rail posted earlier today.

Attacks on high-speed rail in both Congress and state capitals prompted U.S. PIRG to tap actors Vincent Kartheiser and Rich Sommer for the segment, which was can be viewed at this link or above.

In the video, Mad Men character Pete worries that his agency might have picked the wrong horse by advertising for cars, while Harry assures him that “America always makes the right investments. Trains are the most efficient, most economic, best investment.

“But, honestly, I think you can relax on the whole thing,” Harry continues. “I read that in 40 years, gas is going to be almost a dollar a gallon.”

Supporting President Obama’s high-speed rail push “saves oil and gives people a more efficient alternative to the hassles of flying and driving,” says U.S. PIRG’s Phineas Baxandall. “Even 40 years ago it would have been a no-brainer.”

If you support high-speed rail and want to fight back against its critics, watch the video and rate it “funny” to keep the message out there.

“Transportation 101” provides a primer on the federal transportation program

• Executive Summary (900k pdf)
• Full Document (2.2 mb pdf)

One of the primary motivations of the Transportation for America campaign is our belief in building a transportation system that meets 21st century challenges.

But understanding how current federal transportation policy works — much less how to go about changing the current system — requires a sometimes painful amount of context. We know it’s not always the easiest issue to follow and a lot of people tend to use complicated jargon and acronyms that confuse even the veterans sometimes. Advocates and legislative staffers who are new to transportation policy often have a lot of catching up to do, and it’s difficult even for folks who have been around awhile to know all the details.

So we put together “Transportation 101: An Introduction to Federal Transportation Policy” to provide some clarity and help document where we’ve been, where the money comes from, how the program works (or doesn’t work) the process of reauthorization and the new (and old) challenges facing us as Congress debates a new transportation bill.

The report was debuted and distributed during a packed briefing on Capitol Hill in the Cannon House Building this morning. We were lucky enough to have some notable panelists speaking at the event, including Roy Kienitz, Under Secretary for Policy at U.S. DOT; former Virginia Secretary of Transportation Pierce Homer; and Mayor Patrick Henry Hays of North Little Rock, Arkansas to kick it off with a short session giving an overview of the federal, state and local roles in transportation policy.

So if you want to learn more about things like the history of the federal transportation program, how the Interstate System was started, how earmarks came to be so prevalent or how the federal role in funding transportation has changed throughout the years, we hope you find Transportation 101 useful.

(And about that jargon and those acronyms…there’s a glossary in the back.)

DSC_0056 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America to Flickr.

House approves 2011 budget containing deep cuts to transportation

FINAL UPDATE, 2/19/11, 9am: The House voted 235-189 in favor of an FY2011 budget containing $60 billion in spending cuts.

No Democrats supported the continuing resolution and three Republicans opposed it. The Hill has more here, and the final roll call vote is here.

ORIGINAL POST: The U.S House of Representatives is currently debating a bill to fund the government through September of this year. As we noted earlier in the week, the budget under consideration contains deep cuts to transportation, including many of travel options Americans use and support.

Some of the most important cuts to transportation contained in the initial language include:

New Starts, the program that funds new transit construction, gets cut by $430 million. There is also a rescission of about $300 million in unspent 2010 (fiscal year) funds.
High-speed rail is cut completely and the CR would rescind essentially all funds from 2010. Other than the money already spent, this entire program is eliminated.
The innovative TIGER program is eliminated completely and the unspent/unobligated FY10 funds are rescinded.
Amtrak appears to be mostly intact, avoiding the cuts that were proposed by the GOP study committee.

These cuts are the wrong direction for a fragile economy and high unemployment rate. And, as a recent report from Smart Growth America noted, spending on public transportation and infrastructure maintenance is one of the best job-creation tools around. Why would Congress put that at risk?

As if those cuts were not bad enough, several members offered amendments that would go even deeper. Some of the amendments include:

Amendment No. 453, which would eliminate all funding for Amtrak. (Sponsor: Rep. Connie Mack, R- Florida)
Amendment No. 45, which would reduce Amtrak funding by $447 million (Sponsor: Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas)
Amendment No. 204, which would remove funding for the White House Director of Urban Affairs (Sponsor: Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana)

A number of amendments would restore critical programs. These include:

Amendment No. 400, which would restore all Recovery Act funding (Sponsor: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas)
Amendment No. 69, which would restore funding to the TIFIA grant program (Sponsor: Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado)
Amendment No. 44, which would restore most public transportation funding (Sponsor: Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York)

An amendment sponsored by Northern Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly that would have restored cuts to the Washington DC Metro system was ruled out of order by House Republicans and will not come up for a vote.

Congress is expected to continue debating for several hours, with a final vote time still unclear. Amendments relating to the Department of Transportation have not yet been considered.

UPDATE, 2/17/11, 9:30am: The House took up or postponed action on two amendments of interest late last night:

Amendment No. 511 (Nadler), which would have restored funding to several transportation programs, was ruled as out of order for lack of a revenue source and will not come up for a vote.
Amendment No. 43 (Sessions), which would reduce Amtrak funding by $447 million, was postponed and is expected to receive a vote today.

UPDATE, 11:15am: Amendment No. 43 (Sessions), which sought to reduce Amtrak funding by $447 million, was defeated by a vote of 176-250.

UPDATE, 3pm: The House still has a number of amendments to consider on the Transportation and Housing portions of the budget. Members will continue debating into the evening, with a late vote expected on the full package.

UPDATE, 7pm: Amendment No. 204 (Scalise), which seeks to remove funding for several positions, including the White House Director of Urban Affairs, was approved by a vote of 241-171.

The Hill has more information on this vote.

UPDATE, 2/18/11, 10am: The House adjourned past 1am last night without voting on the bill. Debate continues today.

UPDATE, 12:45pm: The House is debating the “Republican Study Committee” amendment, which would add an across-the-board 5.5 percent cut to the entire budget, with exemptions for defense and homeland security. The amendment would also reduce legislative budgets by 11 percent.

Republican Rep. Dan Lungren, a member of the Committee, is opposing the amendment, saying the cuts to Capitol Police and legislative staff are too deep. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, Republican of Kentucky, also opposes the amendment.

UPDATE, 3:30pm: The amendment seeking an across-the-board spending cut of 5.5 percent was rejected by a vote of 147-281.

The Hill has more information.

Americans want Congress to ‘fix it first’, invest in and improve our transportation system

I-5 Repair Originally uploaded by WSDOT to Flickr.

In the midst of the fervor about the House’s budget resolution for 2011 released Friday, and the President’s budget proposal for 2012 dominating the news today, a new bipartisan poll from the Rockefeller Foundation contains compelling arguments from a majority of Americans in favor of increased and accountable investment in transportation.

The poll shows unequivocally that voters from across the political spectrum are tired of bickering and want Congress to seek compromise. And almost nowhere else is their desire for cooperation and solutions greater than with the issue of transportation infrastructure.

Americans largely see investments in transportation as a way to improve the economy and make communities safer, while improving the quality of life for more people. They clearly see a need for reform when it comes to paying for and choosing the transportation projects we need, according to the results.

This poll shows that we believe strongly that providing a safe transportation systems that works is a primary role of our government, and that it should be above partisan divisions, more than most other issues. The Administration’s budget proposal, released this morning, also delivers on the desire reflected in the poll to prioritize the maintenance of what we’ve already built, and for giving local communities more say in how they solve their transportation issues and build for the future.

It’s fitting that the release of this poll is sandwiched between the House’s 2011 plan to gut transportation spending and the Administration’s 2012 plan to invest more money in transportation (within a budget laced with overall cuts). This poll makes it abundantly clear that the House 2011 budget resolution – which would cut support for communities that want better public transportation and safer streets — is at dramatic odds with the desires of a majority of Americans.

Here are some of the detailed top-line findings from the poll:

Should Congress find some way to work together on the issue of transportation? 71 percent of voters say there should be common ground on this issue — higher than other major issues — while 19 percent say leaders should hold fast to their positions, which is lower than other major issues.

The connection between investing and building the economy: Four in five (80 percent) voters agree that federal funding to improve and modernize transportation “will boost local economies and create millions of jobs from construction to manufacturing to engineering.” Just 19 percent disagree with this. 79 percent agree that “in order for the United States to remain the world’s top economic superpower, we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure and keep it up to date.” Only 19 percent disagree.

What should greater investment on transportation net us in the end? What would the benefits be? Voters’ top goal by far is “safer streets for our communities and children.” 57 percent say this should be one of the top-two priorities if more money is invested in infrastructure. The second-highest priority for voters overall (32 percent) is “more transportation options.” In addition, 85 percent agree that “spending less time in traffic would improve quality of life, make communities safer, and reduce stress in people’s daily lives.” Moreover, the vast majority also believe the country (80 percent) and their own community (66 percent) would benefit from an expanded and improved public transportation system.

What should we change about how we invest money in transportation? Two-thirds of respondents favored 9 of 10 reforms offered, with 90 percent supporting more accountability and certification that projects are delivered on time and fit into a national plan. Among the specific reforms to the system that were proposed, 86 percent supported a “fix it first” policy that focuses on maintaining existing transportation systems before building new ones.

This poll was conducted by two Republican and Democratic polling firms from Jan. 29-Feb 6 2011. Disclosure: T4 America is a grantee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

President Obama proposes $556 billion, six-year federal transportation program

President Obama released a budget for the 2012 fiscal year this morning that includes a significant investment in our nation’s infrastructure and a long-overdue emphasis on options and accountability.

The $556 billion, six-year proposal for transportation reauthorization included in the budget is an ambitious standout in a largely sober blueprint. However, persistent unemployment — particularly in the construction industry — makes the case for forgoing infrastructure cuts in favor of investment. When more Americans are working, paying taxes and putting their dollars back into their communities, the deficit goes down too.

Yonah Freemark from the Transport Politic pointed out that the President’s budget continues the expansion of transportation options.

Though the Administration would increase funding for roads construction from $41 billion in the previous budget to $70 billion, that increase is dwarfed in percentage by proposed spending on transit, which would more than double from $8 billion annually currently to $22 billion. Over six years, spending on capital improvements for public transportation would add up to $119 billion.

Tanya Snyder at Streetsblog Capitol Hill also offered some initial reactions.

As promised, the budget also includes the $53 billion for high-speed rail over six years previewed by Vice President Biden in a speech last week.

True to the overall theme of cuts coupled with smarter investment, the plan consolidates 55 programs into just five and invests $30 billion in a National Infrastructure Bank to provide loans and grants to projects of regional and national significance that promote economic growth. The plan contains no earmarks and cancels a number of them still on the books.

The administration is also highlighting a new $32 billion competitive grant program modeled after the successful Race to the Top program in the U.S. Department of Education. This new approach would create incentives for states and regions to pursue their own innovations that reduce congestion, improve quality of life, make it easier for residents to get to work and recreation and enhance economic prosperity. Details about that program should be forthcoming at the U.S. DOT briefing about the budget this afternoon.

In addition, a “Fix-it-first” policy for highways and transit grants would make repair and maintenance of existing infrastructure a higher priority, a reform that would save lives and save money.

The plan does not specify a revenue source for the increases but “commits to work with Congress to ensure that the funding increases for surface transportation do not increase the deficit.”

The U.S. Department of Transportation is hosting a briefing at 2pm at which point many of these details will be further illuminated. T4 America will be releasing a formal statement early this afternoon.

Photo: AFP/Getty Images

Vice President Biden makes the case for rail, cites T4 America co-chair’s hometown as an example

Vice President Joe Biden made an emphatic case for high-speed rail in Philadelphia today as the Obama administration kicks off a series of events this week to highlight the need for infrastructure investment.

Biden, who was joined by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and other officials, is a fitting messenger for rail’s benefits. Dubbed “Amtrak Joe,” he was a regular commuter on the Acela line during his 36 years as a U.S. Senator from Delaware. While campaigning in 2008, he told the New York Times, “If we get elected, it will be the most train-friendly administration ever.”

The Vice President announced a six-year, $53 billion investment in national high-speed and intercity passenger rail during remarks at Philadelphia’s historic 30th Street Station. Passengers traveling on Amtrak’s Keystone Corridor from Pittsburgh and Harrisburg use the station to connect to the popular and speedy Acela line, which runs through New York City, Boston and Washington, DC.

While the Obama administration has made clear that responsible deficit reduction is a priority, Biden emphasized there are some areas where it would be irresponsible to scale back.

“As President Obama said in his State of the Union, there are key places where we cannot afford to sacrifice as a nation – one of which is infrastructure,” the Vice President said, adding: “If you shut down Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, you’d have to add seven new lanes to I-95 to accommodate the traffic.”

The Vice President singled out Meridian, Mississippi mayor and T4 America co-chair John Robert Smith, who served his hometown for four terms. Biden hailed Mayor Smith for using passenger rail to revitalize the economy, bring jobs to the region and improve quality of life. Meridian’s restored Union Station serves 300,000 passengers, hosts over 250 events every year and has leveraged millions in downtown investment.

The need for increased travel options to accommodate expected population growth was also a theme in the Vice President’s address, along with the fact that simply widening highways and building new ones will not suffice.

“In the next 40 years, the United States is expected to increase in population by 100 million people,” he said. “Seventy percent of all people in America now live within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean. You know how congested we are now. What happens with 100 million more?

“When you talk about the investments we’re making in rail, they pale in comparison to investment you’d have to make in runways or highways,” he added. “And that’s before you factor in the environmental benefit of taking cars off the road.”

With this long-term commitment, cities and states now have the certainty to pursue longer-term plans for rail, and businesses can move forward putting more Americans to work making this vision possible. The administration has also made strides on streamlining existing programs in USDOT. Now, for the first time, all high-speed and passenger rail programs are consolidated into just two new accounts.

As Streetsblog already noted, the politics of transportation spending remain muddled, but today’s announcement was a key step toward laying the foundation for a 21st century system.

Photo: CNN

New report shows the job-creating potential of smart transportation investments

Smart transportation spending can create jobs today and grow our economy tomorrow, according to a new report from Smart Growth America, adding a new entry to their excellent work evaluating the transportation spending in the stimulus.

The report, “Recent Lessons from the Stimulus: Transportation Funding and Job Creation”, analyzes whether states made the best use of transportation dollars in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The analysis comes two years after passage of the Recovery Act doled out $26.6 billion in flexible transportation funds to the states.

The findings are pretty simple to summarize:

According to data sent by the states to Congress, the states that created the most jobs invested in public transportation and projects that maintained and repaired existing roads and bridges. The states that ranked poorly predominantly spent their funds building new roads and bridges.

Historically, investments in public transportation have generated 31 percent more jobs per dollar than new construction of roads and bridges. However, SGA’s findings show that the payoff was even larger in Recovery Act spending, with public transportation projects producing 70 percent more jobs per dollar than road projects.

Newsweek’s David A. Graham covered the report’s release yesterday and noted:

Today the unemployment rate is hovering above 9 percent — better than it would have been without the stimulus, most experts agree, but still painfully high. Why didn’t we get more for our money?

While liberals and conservatives alike blame the stimulus itself — It wasn’t big enough! It was never going to work! — the problem may have more to do with how the money was spent. It’s not enough just to inject money into infrastructure, because not all transportation funding is created equal — or at least, it doesn’t create jobs at an equal rate. As any infrastructure policy wonk can tell you, money spent on fixing up existing systems or building mass transit delivers more jobs, and faster, than building new highways.

SGA also released findings from a November poll (pdf) that found that 91 percent of voters feel maintaining and repairing our roads and bridges should be the top or a high priority for state spending on transportation programs, and 68 percent believe that improving and expanding public transportation options should be the top or a high priority.

According to the report’s state-by-state rankings, seven states and the District of Columbia spent 100 percent of their Recovery Act flexible transportation funds to preserve existing roads and bridges, and ranked among the top states. The states included: Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, South Dakota, Connecticut, Rhode Island and North Dakota. Among other findings:

Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Kansas and Arkansas spent the majority of funds building new roads and bridges and comprised the bottom five in terms of average jobs created per dollar spent.
Florida and Kansas can point to roads that are in good shape relative to other states and thus less need for repair and maintenance.

“SGA’s analysis aligns closely with what the American people say they want: fix what we have, provide an array of transportation options and make sure our streets are safe for everyone,” noted Transportation for America Director James Corless. “Congress ought to listen to the American people and embrace the kind of investments we need by passing a comprehensive transportation bill that prepares us for the 21st century. Absent action, we will lose needed jobs today and opportunity tomorrow.”

SGA has a more detailed write-up and full download of the report available here, and you can read Newsweek’s coverage here.

President Obama calls for fixing 20th century infrastructure while building for the 21st

The theme of President Obama’s State of the Union address last night was winning the future, and investing in America’s infrastructure was an integral part of it.

“The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America,” the President said, after discussing his vision for innovation and education. Other nations have outpaced our investment in roads and railways, and our own engineers have graded our infrastructure a “D,” he noted.

President Obama rightly emphasized the need for a 21st century transportation system on top of fixing what we built in the 20th. He also pointed out that we create more jobs and greater opportunity when we embrace an array of transportation options. The transcontinental railroad, rural electrification and the Interstate Highway System did not just put Americans to work in construction, he said. Jobs also came from “businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.”

“We were thrilled to hear the President come right out and say that investment in transportation and other infrastructure is central to rebuilding and growing our economy,” said Transportation for America Director James Corless. “An upfront investment in the most needed, clean transportation projects is a great opportunity to create near-term jobs and lay the groundwork for the future economy.”

The President also reiterated his strong support for high-speed rail, with the goal of giving 80 percent of Americans access to the system within 25 years. “This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car,” he said.

“For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down,” he added, to laughter.

Although he did not identify the program by name, President Obama endorsed the principles behind an infrastructure bank, saying we ought to “pick projects based (on) what’s best for the economy, not politicians.” And he vowed to harness private capital to help pay for new projects, a goal shared by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, a Florida Republican.

A number of groups, including business and labor, hailed the President’s focus on investing in the future. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue echoed Obama’s call for “a world class infrastructure” and called for “common ground to ensure America’s greatness into the 21st century.” ALF-CIO’s Richard Trumka said, “We strongly support the President’s vision on infrastructure to create good jobs and succeed in a global economy, and working people are ready to work with him and hold him to his promises.”

AASHTO, the trade group representing state departments of transportation, was “encouraged that President Obama supports investing in America’s transportation infrastructure – recognizing the role it plays in creating jobs, growing the national economy and balancing the federal deficit,” according to Executive Director John Horsley, who added that he looks forward to working with the Administration and Congress on a reauthorization bill.

The Equity Caucus at Transportation for America said that “smarter transportation investments can unleash the under-realized economic power of communities across America.”

T4 America echoes these sentiments, and we are especially pleased with the President’s dual commitment to job creation today and economic prosperity tomorrow.

“The President’s vision for infrastructure is not just about near-term construction jobs,” Corless said. “It is, as he said, about growing new businesses, livable neighborhoods and dynamic regions that can attract a young and mobile workforce and compete internationally.

“It’s about jobs associated with new transportation technologies and manufacturing modern transit vehicles, everything from real time information systems to make our highways and transit corridors smarter, to the new rail cars being built today by United Streetcar in Oregon that can breathe new life into our cities and suburbs,” he added.

You can read T4 America’s entire statement here. You can learn more about the Equity Caucus at Transportation for America and read their entire statement here.

Photo: AP

California needs smart station planning to maximize high-speed rail’s benefits

This is a projected image of the area around the Sacramento station, courtesy of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

High-speed rail investment has the potential to yield great economic and environmental rewards for California, but only if communities make smart decisions about land-use and growth at and around new stations.

A new report prepared by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association offers prescriptions for how communities can prepare for rail investments.

“The new statewide rail system presents a once-in-a-century opportunity to reshape their local economies and set the course for more compact, less automobile-dependent growth,” according to the report.

The first leg of California’s high-speed rail is the backbone of the system through the state’s Central Valley, including population-rich Bakersfield and Fresno. Once all 26 stations have been completed, the system will reach northward to Sacramento and include service from San Francisco to Los Angeles and further southward to San Diego.

The benefits are plentiful. For starters, by shortening travel time between successful metro areas, high-speed rail brings geographically distant focal points closer, connecting more people to opportunities and jobs. The new stations and ease of travel can also revitalize downtowns, bring economic opportunity to low-income communities and reduce suburban sprawl.

By providing a viable alternative to the car — and, in the case of longer journeys, to energy-intensive air travel — high-speed rail is also a terrific means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and assisting California in meeting the targets of its groundbreaking climate change law, AB 32.

But each of these potential benefits comes with a cautionary tale. The BART system in the San Francisco Bay Area, for instance, was intended to fuel compact and transit-oriented development, but many of the more suburban stations were surrounded by parking lots and built away from town centers, missing the opportunity to add ridership by building up those areas or spurring new walkable centers. Similarly, most of California’s airports are surrounded by parking lots and access roads, making nearby development less desirable. Policymakers must make a concerted effort to avoid a similar fate near high-speed rail stations and be willing to prioritize growth in strategic areas.

The station sites face myriad challenges and opportunities. Some, like San Francisco and Sacramento already have traditional downtowns, while San Jose and Anaheim have emerging downtowns with the potential for growth. Stockton, Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield have downtowns as well, but struggle with high unemployment and a lack of private sector investment. Reconciling rail with more traditional suburbs and major airports will be the focus at other stations.

SPUR offers ten recommendations for planning preparation, which include:

Developing station area plans for each high-speed rail station area
Drafting statewide station area planning and development guidelines to inform local decision-makers
Drafting a statewide implementation plan
Providing financial support for local planning as needed
And, establishing local development corporations to facilitate local area development

To see the rest of SPUR’s recommendations and the entire report, you can visit their website here.

Could another new passenger rail line be facing the ax?

An Amtrak passenger train heads back to Chicago with a heavy load of passengers. Photo by David Johnson/NARP

UPDATE (1/21/11): The Iowa House approved a measure to cut the funding. It will likely move to the Senate. If you live in Iowa, use this link to contact your Rep and Senator today to tell them you support this important line.

Potentially following in the footsteps of Wisconsin and Ohio, the Republicans in the state legislature are considering the possibility of killing Iowa’s portion of a planned higher speed passenger rail line from Chicago to Iowa City that would pass through the Quad Cities and the new Moline (Ill.) multimodal transportation hub funded by a TIGER grant.

Just after the last round of TIGER grants were announced, Iowa and Illinois received a joint $230 million grant from the Federal Railroad Administration — separately from the DOT’s high-speed rail program — to start new 110 mph service from Chicago to Iowa City; service that could eventually connect to Des Moines and Omaha and lay the groundwork for a true 220 mph high-speed system connecting Iowa to the hub (Chicago) of the midwest’s high speed network.

The feds have committed $230 million of the $310 million that the two states were asking for on this project, leaving the states to come up with the rest. Iowa had committed around $10 million toward the gap, but state Republicans are currently working on a budget that would cancel that funding and result in all sorts of dilemmas for the project. From the Des Moines Register:

The Republican-sponsored budget package would not provide any state money needed to establish and subsidize operations for the route, almost certainly forcing the Iowa Department of Transportation to return a federal grant of $81.4 million already awarded for the passenger train project.

Where the story on this project differs from similar recent stories in Wisconsin and Ohio of grants going back to Washington is that this project spans two states for an interstate rail line. Illinois will be able to keep their share of the grant, which is larger since the bulk of the route spans their state, but what will happen to the route? Will it simply stop at the border at the new Moline multimodal hub? What about the future of a Omaha/Des Moines/Iowa City connection to Chicago? Will it bypass important Iowa cities?

It’s imperative that the Iowa legislature and Governor Branstad follow through on their state’s commitment to build this valuable new service. Following the path of I-80 and I-88, it would hit all the major population centers of Iowa on it’s way to and from Chicago.

Could this be the new terminal of the line intended to travel into Iowa? Photo of the planned Moline (Illinois) multimodal center.

The silliest comment of the day comes from Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, who somehow manages to compare the benefits of a ditch being dug and filled in to an invaluable direct transportation connection to the economic engine of the Midwest.

“I can hire someone to dig a ditch, hire somebody to fill it in, and somebody would claim it creates a job, but does it really accomplish anything?” McKinley said. “I think that’s the question we have to ask ourselves about passenger rail to Chicago.”

The legislative session hasn’t started yet, so it may be premature to jump to any conclusions yet as the Iowa Chamber said, but as the recent cuts in Wisconsin and Ohio showed us, it’s important that these leaders hear from supporters early and often — long before a decision is made. And incoming Governor Terry Branstad has thus far pledged to keep the issue nonpartisan and examine the project fairly and honestly. He needs to be held to that promise.

Iowa residents: Call and write your state legislators and Governor Branstad and tell them that this project is crucially important to Iowa’s future. You can use this page to look up their phone numbers and emails.

Smarter transportation case study #8: Bus Rapid Transit Priority in Salt Lake City, Utah

Rapid growth and a growing tourism industry prompted Salt Lake City officials to bring increased efficiency and connectivity to the area’s bus system.

A rapidly growing tourism industry, increasing diversity and economic growth in downtown prompted Salt Lake City officials to improve mobility options throughout the region. The Salt Lake City metropolitan area has a population of just over one million people, with roughly 200,000 living in the city proper.

Salt Lake City made infrastructure improvements to connect regional bus routes to existing transportation networks, like the regional light rail system. Designed to mimic the efficiency of light rail, the bus rapid transit system leveraged the city’s transportation network to provide convenient and reliable travel options. The MAX Bus Rapid Transit System began in 2008 by incorporating bus-only lanes and track signal priority for buses along the entirety of the system’s 10.8-mile bus route. Buses have the right-of-way at intersections and track signal detection helps turn lights green as buses arrive. Along the most congested portions of the route, buses run in both directions in a dedicated center lane, allowing them to bypass cars. These innovative technologies keep trip travel time to a minimum and hold fuel costs in check, while maintaining a high standard for safety.

The system utilizes payment centers located on the bus, including user-friendly credit card machines, to allow passengers to quickly board the bus through one of three available doors.

The Utah Transit Authority plans to connect all the cities within the region to the light rail network with up to 80 miles of corridor routes within 20 years; 4,200 riders currently pass through the line’s 29 stops every day.

“This has the potential to become a piece of a future transportation spine,” Provo Mayor Lewis Billings said.

The MAX bus rapid transit line has seen a one-third increase in ridership and a 15 percent reduction in average travel time since 2008. The MAX line achieved a 97 percent on-time reliability rating on its very first day of operation, and now saves riders an average of 20 minutes per trip compared to an equivalent conventional bus driving the same route.

The project was awarded a “Smart Solutions Spotlight” from ITS America in June 2010.

For More Information: Deseret News

—-

Editor’s Note: Our new report on smarter mobility demonstrates how existing and emerging technologies can squeeze more capacity from over-burdened highways, help commuters avoid traffic delays and expand and improve transportation options, all while saving money and creating jobs. Many of these smart transportation solutions are already fueling innovation throughout the country, through both the public and private sector. These 14 case studies from around the U.S. and the world demonstrate the community benefits smart mobility solutions are giving regions, cities, and businesses.

Read the ITS Case Study Series

Smarter transportation case study #7: Bike sharing program in Pottstown, Pa.

A first-in-the-region bikesharing program has increased transportation options and improved public health in this town 40 miles outside Philadelphia.

Pottstown is a town of just over 20,000 people located about 40 miles northwest of Philadelphia. The community has struggled to find a new identity and revitalize its economy since the decline of the iron and steel industries. They have found some success leveraging the area’s convenient access to the Schuylkill River Trail, a multi-use trail that connects Philadelphia to nearby communities.

The Bike Pottstown bike sharing program was launched in June of 2008 with 30 beach cruiser bikes all painted yellow and accompanied by a lock and a basket. Managed by Preservation Pottstown, a local non-profit organization within the borough, the program operates six days a week out of Tri-County Bicycles, a local independently owned bike shop. Anyone with a valid ID can rent the bikes and ride anywhere in the Pottstown until the end of the day. The bikes are free of charge and by December 2009 had been shared over 2,000 times.

“Bike Pottstown is a community bike-share program,” said Tom Carroll, president of Preservation Pottstown. “By having it operate out of this location, and eventually out of others as well, it brings the program to more people in the community, and, hopefully, will bring more community support to the program.”

The only free bike sharing program in the greater Philadelphia region, Bike Pottstown has been featured in numerous newspapers, magazines and television news segments. The media attention has been a win-win for the community, bringing needed tourism and renewing local enthusiasm for bicycling as a source of exercise and transportation. Bike Pottstown is removing cars from the road, promoting physical fitness and providing residents with more options for commuting to work, although most use the program recreationally.

Bike Pottstown was able to get off the ground because of a $30,000 grant from the Pottstown Area Health and Wellness Foundation. The funding paid for the infrastructure study, bicycles and the first year of operating costs. Subsequent annual operating costs are paid for through promotional items, sponsorships and donations.

Bike Pottstown Facebook Page

Pottstown bike sharing bikes. Photo courtesy of Bike Pottstown.

—-

Read the ITS Case Study Series

Smarter transportation case study #6: Managed lanes with peak-period transit discounts in Minneapolis

In Minneapolis, priority lanes and differential pricing have cleared a key interstate during peak hours and allowed more com- muters to utilize public transit.

The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is using innovative solutions to relieve congestion on major highways in the region, with a particular focus on Interstate 35. The effort, part of a Minnesota Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA), utilizes a suite of intelligent transportation approaches, sometimes known as the 4Ts: Tolling, Transit, Telecommuting/Travel Demand Management and Technology.

The Minnesota UPA involves ITS technologies like real-time traffic and transit information, transit signal priority, and guidance mechanisms for shoulder-running buses. These technologies will significantly reduce travel time for riders.

“Trip time will be about half an hour. We’ll offer six trips in the morning and six trips home in the afternoon,” Bob Gibbons, a spokesman for Metro Transit, told Minnesota Public Radio.

First, the city is converting existing bus-only shoulder lanes and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along portions of the Interstate into wider lanes with prices that vary based on occupancy. Cars with only one occupant will have to pay a toll to access the lanes during peak hours, with prices set to ensure free-flowing travel. City officials say this will enable bus speeds to increase to 50 mph from the current bus-only shoulder lane speeds of 35 mph or less.

Second, a portion of the toll revenues from the new lanes will fund significant fare discounts for transit riders taking trips using the new facilities during peak periods. In and around the I-35W corridor, transit services will increase and a bus rapid transit network will be created, utilizing at least 27 newly purchased transit vehicles. There are also plans for six new park-and-ride lots with more than 1,400 additional spaces.

Third, new dynamic message signs and some existing signs will inform travelers about the availability of the lanes for non-bus use, toll rates for when the lanes are available, travel speeds on priced lanes versus on general-purpose lanes and transit alternatives.

The final element of the Minnesota UPA is telecommuting. This locally funded effort will focus on expanding upon the successful Results-Only Work Environment program, in which employers agree to provide employees the flexibility to telecommute or shift their hours to avoid congested commutes. Approximately 75 percent of Best Buy’s 4,500 corporate office employees participate in ROWE. Officials are targeting large employers, including the 20 Fortune 500 companies in the region, for participation, with the goal of reducing 500 daily peak-period trips throughout the corridor.

For More Information: Minnesota Public Radio

The MnPASS or congestion pricing lane on the left will be available at no cost to buses, car pools and to single driver vehicles willing to pay as little as 25 cents or up to $8 a trip depending on traffic levels. Traffic managers adjust the price in order to keep the lane flowing at 50 miles per hour. Photo by Dan Olson, Minnesota Public Radio

—-

Read the ITS Case Study Series

Smarter transportation case study #5: Traffic signal optimization; Portland, Oregon

Portland officials improved the timing and coordination of traffic signals in 17 key intersections, resulting in lower auto emissions and less traffic.

In 2002, the Climate Trust, a Portland-based non-profit, contracted with the City of Port- land to buy offsets from a project aimed at improving traffic signals.

Naito at Night Originally uploaded by ahockley to Flickr.

Portland traffic flowing smoothly at night.

The traffic signal optimization project ensures maximum green light times for the heaviest traffic flows and allows signal cycle time to adjust based on changing demands during peak times, such as rush hour. Seventeen major arterials were identified for improved signal timing using studies on optimizing traffic flow and reducing gridlock.

“It’s like having the Internet for our transpor- tation system,” said Peter Koonce, Division Manager of Signals and Street Lighting for the City of Portland.

After the signal timing has been completed, the Climate Trust pays Portland based upon the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that will be avoided.

In the program’s first six years, more than 157,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions were prevented, the equivalent of the emissions generated from burning 17.7 million gallons of gasoline. As a result of this success, city officials extended the partnership contract through 2012 with a goal of reducing an additional 21,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

The project was awarded a ‘Smart Solutions Spotlight’ from ITS America in February 2010.

For More Information: Daily Journal of Commerce, Oregon

—-

Read the ITS Case Study Series

Smarter transportation case study #4: Dynamic Parking Pricing, San Francisco

SFpark has reduced idle driving time and cut congestion by making it easier to track and locate parking in San Francisco.

In 2009, 30 percent of driving San Francisco consisted of drivers circling around the block looking for parking. Now, city officials are pursuing an intelligent parking-pricing model called “SFpark” to cut down on the wasted time and fuel that too often results from this elusive parking search. A two-year pilot phase began this past summer.

Under SFpark, parking spaces throughout the city will contain sensors that give real time digital information about whether the space is occupied and for how long. The sensors will be wired into a database that coordinates parking across San Francisco. Information is compiled at a block-by-block level and available via the web, smart phone applications, text messages and roadway signs.

In order to keep an optimum amount of parking available throughout the city, the hourly parking rates will be raised or lowered in response to demand. The changes in price will occur no more than once a month and be published in advance. The goal is to set a pricing level that will keep from 10 to 30 percent of spaces in a given area vacant.

“The idea is to give people more choice, more convenience and to reduce congestion,” Mayor Gavin Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle, earlier this year.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency received a $19.8 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Urban Partnership Program, which amounts to 80 percent of the SFpark project costs. The remaining 20 percent of the program comes from the agency’s budget.

For more information: San Francisco Chronicle

SFpark Overview from SFpark on Vimeo.

—-

Read the ITS Case Study Series

Two former secretaries of transportation stress renewed focus on infrastructure, better ways to pay for it

Former secretaries of transportation Norman Mineta and Samuel Skinner want less talk on infrastructure and more action.

The two have a working relationship that dates back to the early 1990s, when Mineta was a Democratic Congressman from San Jose serving as chair of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee, and Skinner was DOT Secretary under President George H.W. Bush. Mineta went on to head USDOT under President George W. Bush.

In a briefing on Capitol Hill yesterday, the duo called for increased attention on the nation’s infrastructure and declared the existing gas tax an insufficient funding source for the future.

“Transportation policy is very important in this country,” Mineta said. “It is the basis of everything that happens.”

Added Skinner: “We have to find new and creative ways to invest in infrastructure and generate the revenue to do so.”

Ashley Halsey of the Washington Post summarized some of the report’s key findings:

If Congress were to do the report’s bidding, the task would be far broader in scope than simply coming up with trillions of dollars in long-term funding to rebuild a 50-year-old highway system.

The experts also advocated adoption of a distinct capital spending plan for transportation, empowering state and local governments with authority to make choices now dictated from the federal level, continued development of high-speed rail systems better integrated with freight rail transportation, and expansion of intermodal policies rather than reliance on highways alone to move goods and people.

Mineta and Skinner’s bipartisan report also cited “nurturing livable communities” as a smart, needed strategy for reducing congestion and improving quality of life. They wrote:

Creating communities conducive to walking and alternative modes of transportation, especially in dense metropolitan areas, should be an important goal of transportation policy at all levels of government.

That a bipartisan duo of transportation secretaries, both of whom worked in Republican administrations, would cite livability and walkable communities as key goals for a 21st century transportation system speaks volumes. It tells us that there’s nothing partisan about getting out of traffic and getting home in time for dinner.

Ezra Klein, a Post staff writer and domestic politics blogger, echoed a similar theme over the weekend, pointing out that the low interest rates and cheaper construction and labor costs resulting from the recession present a unique opportunity to make needed infrastructure investments today at a massively reduced cost. “Delaying a dollar of needed infrastructure repairs is no different than racking up a dollar of debt,” Klein wrote. He goes on to affirm what we already know about the transportation spending process: it’s too political, not accountable, and Americans think it’s broken.

The problem is that the way we choose our infrastructure projects is an embarrassment. About 10 percent of infrastructure spending comes from politicians securing earmarks. Most of the rest depends on a formula in which the government just hands money over to the states. There’s no requirement for cost-benefit analysis or rate-of-return calculations. The decisions are horribly politicized.

If taxpayers are going to make a huge investment in our nation’s infrastructure, then we’re owed an assurance that policymakers are choosing the best projects. That suggests a grand bargain, in which more infrastructure money is tied to reforms ensuring a better process for spending that money.

The report, titled “Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda,” was sponsored by the Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia and can be downloaded in its entirely at the InfrastructureUSA website.

Debunking the congestion index used to justify the policies that keep us stuck in traffic

Interstate 24 Traffic Originally uploaded by Transportation for America to Flickr.

The cycle is familiar by now. A study tells us what we all know: our roads are congested. We pour billions into new roads and lanes to “reduce congestion.” Then the study comes out two years later and just as before, our roads are still congested. There’s a call for new roads, new roads open up, we drive further and further, congestion goes up. Rinse and repeat.

Every two years, nearly every major media outlet in the country reports on a “congestion index” study that ranks metro areas and cities by their relative amount of traffic congestion. But a significant new report from CEOs for Cities suggests that there’s a fundamental flaw in that study from the Texas Transportation Institute, and by failing to accurately measure congestion or pinpoint what is producing it in our cities, we’re failing to truly understand the problem.

And when you don’t understand the problem, how can you ever really fix it?

Noah Kazis at Streetsblog most succinctly describes how the TTI study fails to see the whole picture:

Imagine two drivers leaving downtown to head home. Each of them sits in traffic for the first ten miles of the commute but at that point, their paths diverge. The first one has reached home. The second has another twenty miles to drive, though luckily for her, the roads are clear and congestion doesn’t slow her down. Who’s got a better commute?

Shockingly, the standard method for measuring traffic congestion implies that the second driver has it better. The Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report (UMR) only studies how congestion slows down drivers from hypothetical maximum speeds, completely ignoring how long it takes to actually get where you’re going. The result is an incessant call for more highway lanes from newspapers across the country.

The reason why we find ourselves in this situation is because our current federal transportation policies virtually guarantee it. There’s no financial incentive for anyone to measure congestion accurately or improve it — states just get a big load of federal transportation money with few strings attached. Congestion doesn’t get better in large part because states and metro areas aren’t required to reduce congestion or try to shorten or reduce trips with their federal money.

If a state wants to spend some of their federal money on a new comprehensive metro transit system to provide drivers some relief by giving them an additional option as well as taking cars off the road, the process takes years longer and is far more complex. What state, given the choice, would choose to invest in projects that take 4 times longer to get approved and require more local money to build? (Transit projects have about 50% of the cost paid by the federal government, highways get around 80%.)

As this new study demonstrates, the lack of proper metrics to measure success (or mostly failure) is emblematic of the need for reform.

If the ultimate point is to make smart transportation policy, we need to look at a lot of different factors that affect people’s lives. Fixating solely on interstate throughput, while failing to offer other travel and living options, has led our state departments of transportation to invest billions to create a result that is choking the lives out of our regions and isn’t making life better for the vast majority of commuters.

The good news is that places that are attempting to reduce trips and congestion by investing in diverse transportation options are actually showing progress. Regions that have been aggressively investing in additional travel options, eliminating trips, reducing trip length, creating more places to live close to jobs or more effectively managing demand have seen their congestion numbers get better, according to the CEOs for Cities report.

All of this is just one more giant sign pointing to the need for a truly reformed transportation program that can more accurately measure the problems we face, prescribe solutions that will work, and get out of the way as we unleash those solutions on the traffic that is killing our productivity and choking our regions while we motor along at 10 mph with no other option.

Once a critic, now a supporter, Ohio Rep. helps make complete streets bill bipartisan

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) probably learned the hard way earlier this year that safe, accessible streets for bikers, walkers and all users don’t tend to have any party affiliation, and he is to be commended for proving his support for complete streets by signing onto the House complete streets bill last week, becoming its first Republican cosponsor.

On behalf of our thousands of supporters from communities across the country who think that it’s important that our transportation network be safe and usable by everyone, we’d like to thank Rep. LaTourette for signing on to the Complete Streets Act of 2009, making the bill bipartisan in the House. He joins sixty other co-sponsors in supporting good transportation planning practices that ensure that the safety of everyone using the road will be taken into account – whether they are driving, bicycling, walking, or catching the train or bus.

For some strange reason at the federal level, complete streets have been unfortunately maligned as a partisan issue, with Republicans in Congress hesitant to formally support the principles in a bill, resulting in the strange dynamic of Congress being far behind the curve of their state and local counterparts where politicians and leaders of all stripes have supported complete streets from the state level on down to the big city, metro area, county and small town — no matter their party affiliation.

“With 23 states and more than 140 local governments adopting Complete Streets policies, it has become clear that this is not a partisan issue – and that this is a change in transportation priorities that Americans want to see nationwide,” said Barbara McCann, Executive Director of the National Complete Streets Coalition.

Charlotte Complete Streets-East Boulevard Originally uploaded by Complete Streets to Flickr.

Before its road diet, Charlotte’s East Boulevard was a four-lane, undivided road, that carried over 20,000 per day! Now, East Blvd–with its bike lanes, center turn lane, and curb ramps — is a complete street. Photo: Charmeck.org

We’d certainly like to hope that Rep. LaTourette’s signature on the bill — a product of responding to the voice of his local constituents — will open the floodgates for more House Republicans to support a bill and an idea that has broad support across the country in the local areas they represent. We’re sure there are dozens of House Republicans who are supportive of this idea but have been hesitant to be the only member of their party on the bill at such a polarized time in D.C.

When Rep. LaTourette made his comments back in April of this year about biking and walking to Secretary LaHood in a hearing, he was overwhelmed by the outpouring of comments from residents of his district who agreed with the Secretary that it was high time to treat biking and walking as legitimate and equal forms of transportation.

So local advocates from Walk and Roll Cleveland worked with Mr. LaTourette to bring him on board, sharing information with him about the economic benefits of building infrastructure to serve bicyclists and pedestrians and local bicycle shop owners also visited him. It certainly didn’t hurt that the Ohio Department of Transportation has been showing interest in developing a statewide policy, according to the folks at the National Complete Streets Coalition, or that Cleveland’s metropolitan planning organization adopted a policy 7 years ago.

Members of the National Complete Streets Coalition were pleased with the development.

“In signing on to the Complete Streets bill, Rep. LaTourette has started what could become a significant step toward safer more user-friendly streets for everyone, whether they walk, drive or ride,” said AARP Senior VP for Government Relations and Advocacy David Sloane. “Many Ohioans have seen the benefits of Complete Streets policies in their hometowns; AARP looks forward to the rest of the nation sharing that opportunity.”

Are you represented by someone who hasn’t yet signed onto the Complete Streets Act of 2009? Follow the lead of these Ohio advocates and start calling your representative and organizing meetings to help them see that this idea has broad support back home where their votes are.

Being able to use a street safely — no matter your age, ability or mode of transport — isn’t a partisan idea. Help get that message across in Washington.

Learn more from the National Complete Streets Coalition.

DOT poised to move on a long-term transportation bill in 2011?

When President Obama made his announcement on Labor Day about investing in infrastructure, most media outlets focused in directly on the $50 billion amount that would be spent up front to jumpstart infrastructure investment — something we already noted last week. But he also talked about the need for a reformed long-term transportation reauthorization, the full six-year bill that would provide certainty for job creation and the economy.

Here’s a quote from the release that accompanied the President’s speech:

The President proposes to pair this with a long-term framework to reform and expand our nation’s investment in transportation infrastructure. Since the end of last year, when the last long-term surface transportation legislation expired, these investments have been continued on a temporary basis, even as the trust fund to finance them has fallen into insolvency. If we are to enjoy the benefits that come from a world-class transportation system, Congress must enact a long-term reauthorization that expands and reforms our infrastructure investments and returns the transportation trust fund to solvency.

So the million dollar question has been, when will we see this bill? With Congress unlikely to pass anything of substance between now and the election and an already full docket for the likely lame duck session to follow, what is the administration or USDOT saying about moving a bill forward?

As much progress as has been made by the House transportation committee thus far, introducing a full bill proposal all the way back in July of 2009, both chambers have been waiting for the White House to declare the transportation bill a priority and to put their significant weight behind it. Now it sounds like that day could be just a few months away.

In a meeting with advocates this week, Secretary LaHood said that they have the go-ahead from the White House to move a six year bill in 2011, with a full proposal accompanying the President’s budget request for FY12 in February, according to USDOT sources.

The question remains as to whether or not that will be a full bill, or merely the administration’s principles for a bill, but in either case, this is at least a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel for our long wait for a transformational transportation bill. Which, we remind you, expired one year ago in just a few days. (See the clock above on our web site.)

Don’t let transportation get lost in the political shuffle; send a letter to your local paper

Newspaper pile Originally uploaded by Valerie Everett to Flickr.

When President Obama announced his vision on Labor Day for investing in 21st century infrastructure, he put our country on the right path toward smart transportation reform — a path that could transform communities across America and create desperately needed jobs.

But his bold vision to invest in safer streets, road and bridge repair, and high speed rail immediately came under fire from many of the usual suspects who prefer the current system of earmarks and oil industry tax breaks.

We need to respond to these attacks on transportation reform – publicly and quickly – to show the country and our lawmakers that the plan’s supporters greatly outnumber its critics.

Take 5 or 10 minutes and write a letter to the editor of your local paper today

Letters published in local papers are read carefully by members of Congress and their staffs – they represent the pulse of their communities. Getting a flood of supportive letters published will go a long way in helping shore up support for a transformational change in our country’s approach to transportation.

Plenty of old guard transportation insiders in Washington, DC – from the highway lobby to the oil companies – would love to see us pour twice as much money into the same old broken system, but we stand with Americans who want accountability for how we invest in transportation, ensuring that we invest in things that can get us moving again and create the most jobs.

Write your letter of support now – we’ll give you talking points to make it fast and easy, and we can even send your letter for you! Use our tool to write and submit a letter to your local paper.