featured Archives - Page 6 of 7 - Transportation For America

Secretary LaHood receives your message loud and clear, responds in kind

DSC_0348 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Secretary Ray LaHood holds the petition from Transportation for America and thousands of supporters while flanked by T4 America campaign director James Corless, left, and Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition Monday afternoon at USDOT

Just a week after the release of Dangerous by Design, our report on the epidemic of pedestrian deaths, Transportation for America and six of our key partners had the opportunity to meet with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. During the meeting yesterday, we delivered a petition with thousands of signatures urging him to make pedestrian safety and complete streets a USDOT priority.

He responded with resounding support, telling T4 America, “the right of way doesn’t just belong to cars — it belongs to pedestrians and bicyclists as well.”

He added, “the DOT Safety Council is going to look at this report and work with advocacy groups to ensure our streets are as safe as possible.”

After Dangerous by Design was released last Monday, we asked for your help sending a strong message to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that safer, complete streets must be a priority at USDOT. The response was fantastic. In just five days, we received more than 4,100 signatures from people in 47 U.S. states on a petition to Secretary LaHood.

Due in part to the massive media coverage that Dangerous by Design received last week from coast to coast, we were able to set up this meeting with the Secretary and three of his top deputies to present him with the petition, talk about the report and discuss the urgency of pedestrian and bicycle safety. With the petition and a copy of Dangerous by Design in front of him, LaHood listened intently as T4 America’s James Corless and others talked about the epidemic of preventable deaths — and what we can do to turn the tide and keep pedestrians safe.

DSC_0334_2 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Secretary LaHood was hopeful that federal transportation policy can better accommodate all users and keep them safe, and that now is the right time to make that change.

“I think this Congress gets it now,” Secretary LaHood told us. “Certainly in part because of advocates like you.” He acknowledged that making the streets in our communities safe and accommodating for everyone dovetails well with the Obama administration’s focus on livability.

He stressed that safety is the top consideration for everything they do at USDOT and urged T4 America to take the report directly to Congress as they continue discussions on the full six-year transportation bill. He also asked for more copies of Dangerous by Design (on their way, Mr. Secretary!)

Transportation for America was joined in the meeting by partners from America Bikes, the American Public Health Association, AARP, the National Complete Streets Coalition, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership and Smart Growth America.

View the entire set of photos from the meeting in our Flickr stream, and check back here later today for some more comments on the meeting.

DSC_0376 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Barbara McCann of the National Complete Streets Coalition, right, tells Secretary LaHood a story from Cary, Illinois about Nate Oglesby, a young man who was killed in 2000 on his bicycle because he was crossing the only bridge over the Fox River — one that had no safe lanes for pedestrians. (Two other teens had died there previously.) Lanes were eventually added to the bridge at significant cost, but as McCann noted, “it would have saved money and lives to have just done it right in the first place.” Complete Streets policies would ensure that the needs of all users are considered during the planning phase of a project.

Help us send a message to Secretary LaHood and the USDOT

As our new Dangerous by Design report illustrates, pedestrian safety is a matter of life or death for thousands of Americans each year. With a loss of life equivalent to a jumbo jet going down roughly each month, it is a tragedy that simply does not get enough attention at any level of government. Tragic, because these are preventable deaths, largely on roads that are not safe for walking or biking.

As a follow-up on the release of the report, Transportation for America is working to arrange a meeting with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, perhaps as soon as next week. At this meeting, we plan to deliver the message from our hundreds of partner organizations and thousands of supporters across the country that safer streets must be a priority!

Sign our petition today and help us send a strong message to the USDOT!

Secretary LaHood has already demonstrated a strong interest in safety with a distracted driving initiative and the creation of a new Safety Council, and we have praised his vocal commitment to livability in our towns and communities. Because the Department of Transportation holds the purse strings, if Secretary LaHood adds Complete Streets to his list of safety priorities, we can ensure that every road project facilitates safe travel for everyone — including vulnerable pedestrians.

So if you have not yet signed the petition, go and sign it now so we can take an enormous stack with names from across the country to Secretary LaHood soon. This is our chance to make a big impression and to let him and the DOT know how many of you care about making our streets safer for everyone.

If you have signed the petition already, be sure to post it to Twitter or Facebook with the links below, or tell a friend about it.

Post about this action on Twitter!

Post a link to your Facebook profile

Dangerous by Design

What would the national reaction be if a jumbo jet full of passengers went down with regularity every 31 days or so? How loud would the calls be for a fundamental change in airline safety? It’s easy to imagine the shock and outrage if such a thing happened. Yet that is essentially what happens every year with preventable pedestrian fatalities on our nation’s streets and roads.

Every year, nearly 5,000 Americans die preventable deaths on roads that fail to provide safe conditions for pedestrians. This decade alone, more than 43,000 Americans – including 3,906 children under 16 – have been killed while walking or crossing a street in our communities. With more than 76,000 Americans dying in the last 15 years, it’s the equivalent of a jumbo jet going down roughly every month, yet it receives nothing like that kind of attention.

A new report from Transportation for America and the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Dangerous by Design: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Death (and Making Great Neighborhoods), ranks metropolitan areas based on the relative danger of walking.

Download the full report, see the comprehensive rankings and view all of the companion tables of data online right here: https://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign. After you’ve taken a look, ask U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to make pedestrian safety a priority for the administration. Pedestrian deaths are preventable, and we demand safer streets!

Many of these preventable deaths are occurring along roadways that are dangerous by design, streets engineered for speeding cars with little or no provision for people on foot, in wheelchairs or on a bicycle.

YikesPedestrian Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Look carefully in the turning lane above the center of the photograph. There’s a pedestrian trying to cross this 7-lane urban arterial road. See any crosswalks anywhere on the road? Photo courtesy of Dan Burden.

Over the last several decades, many of our cities and communities have seen the same shift of daily business from walkable, downtown Main Streets to wide, fast-moving state highways. These “arterial” roads are the new main streets in most communities, drawing shopping centers, drive-throughs, apartment complexes and office parks. Unlike the old walkable main streets, however, the pressure to move as many cars through these areas as quickly as possible has led transportation departments to squeeze in as many lanes as they can, while disregarding sidewalks, crosswalks and crossing signals, on-street parking, and even street trees in order to remove impediments to speeding traffic.

As a result, more than half of fatal vehicle crashes occurred on these wide, high capacity and high-speed thoroughfares. Though dangerous, these arterials are all but unavoidable because they are the trunk lines carrying most local traffic and supporting nearly all the commercial activity essential to daily life.

Before the top 10 most dangerous city rankings, here are just a few facts you might like to know:

Inadequate facilities. Of the 9,168 pedestrian fatalities in 2007-08 for which the location of the collision is known, more than 40 percent were killed where no crosswalk was available.

Spending disparity. Though pedestrian fatalities make up 11.8 percent of all traffic-related fatalities, states have allocated less than 1.5 percent of total authorized transportation funds to projects aimed at improving safety for pedestrians (for funds spent under current transportation bill.) No state spends more than 5 percent of federal transportation funds on safety features or programs for pedestrians or cyclists, despite a 30 percent increase in total federal transportation dollars beginning in 2005.

Complete streets save lives. Providing sidewalks, crosswalks and designing for lower traffic speeds saves lives. Only one in 10 pedestrians deaths occurred within crosswalks, while six in 10 occurred on arterial-type roads where speeds were 40 mph or higher.

The danger is not shared equally. Older adults, disabled and low-income Americans are being killed at disproportionate rates. African-Americans, who walk for 50 percent more trips than whites, and Hispanic residents, who walk 40 percent more, are subjected to the least safe conditions and die disproportionately.

Aging in place, yet unable to leave the house on foot. An AARP poll of adults 50 years and older found that 40 percent reported inadequate sidewalks in their neighborhoods and nearly half of respondents reported that they could not safely cross the main roads close to their home.

Rank	Metropolitan Area	2007-08 Pedestrian Danger Index
1	Orlando-Kissimmee, Fla.	221.5
2	Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Fla.	205.5
3	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, Fla.	181.2
4	Jacksonville, Fla.	157.4
5	Memphis, Tenn.-Miss.-Ark.	137.7
6	Raleigh-Cary, N.C.	128.6
7	Louisville/Jefferson County, Ky.-Ind.	114.8
8	Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas	112.4
8	Birmingham-Hoover, Ala.	110.0
10	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga.	108.3

	See the full rankings and download the report

Bay Area business leaders push the Senate for clean transportation

Carl Guardino 1 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a T4 America partner, addresses a gathering at a recent reception hosted by T4 America that brought together administration officials and supporters.

An organization representing more than 300 elite Silicon Valley businesses from Apple to Yahoo! sent a letter last week to Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, urging her to make sure the Senate climate bill adequately invests in clean transportation alternatives to reduce emissions in their region while keeping it mobile and competitive.

The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, made up of mostly tech-focused organizations in Silicon Valley, works to enhance economic competitiveness and maintain a high quality of life for the region. SVLG members employ more than 250,000 people in the Valley and generate more than $1 trillion worth of business each year. (SVLG is a partner of Transportation for America.)

Started in the 1970’s by the founder of Hewlett Packard, they recognize that investments in transit and safe, accessible, walkable neighborhoods are keys to their continued economic success and ability to lure smart and talented workers to the region.

In the letter, president Carl Guardino thanked Chairman Boxer for her leadership on the issue of climate change, and pointed out that California will need to make a large investment in cleaner transportation options if they are going to have any chance of meeting the ambitious reductions proposed in the climate bill:

Transportation represents the fastest growing source of national greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and the largest single source in California, accounting for 40% of emissions. In Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, that number is higher still – 51% of GHG’s.

House bill, H.R. 2454 (Waxman/Markey), recognizes the importance of reducing transportation emissions by requiring states and metropolitan areas adopt new planning requirements and GHG reduction goals. However, the bill provides virtually no allowances for this purpose. Without adequate funding to address transportation’s increasing contribution to climate change, we will not be able to rise and meet this challenge.

The debate over the Senate’s climate bill is expected to heat up in the next few days as Chairman Boxer’s Senate committee releases the numbers showing where the allocations from the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act will be directed.

Transportation for America, our 28,000 supporters and 350+ partners like SVLG have been calling on the Senate to direct 10 percent of the funding to clean transportation alternatives.

The Senate bill will require states and cities to reduce emissions from transportation. Giving them 5-10% of the revenues will give them the tools they need to make investments in clean transportation alternatives, like public transportation and passenger rail, affordable neighborhoods around transit stops and neighborhood projects that increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

Click the jump to read through the entire letter from the SVLG.

(more…)

T4 America health fly-in participant meets Senator Barbara Boxer

Julia Lopez meets Sen. Boxer Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Fourteen-year-old Julia Lopez, right, a childhood wellness advocate from Los Angeles, CA, met California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in the Capitol yesterday. Lopez is in Washington, D.C. to participate in Transportation for America’s “health fly-in” to speak with Congressional representatives about the link between and health and transportation. Lopez will address her own advocacy against childhood obesity during Congressional meetings and this morning at a briefing in the Capitol Visitors’ Center.

California Supreme Court hands victory to local transit riders and providers

A recent California Supreme Court decision could restore billions in funding for public transportation in the nation’s most populous state.

The Court’s ruling late last week upheld a lower court decision declaring the state’s $3.6 billion raid of public transit funds illegal and ordered that the money be returned to local transit providers.

Two months ago, Transportation for America released “Stranded at the Station: The Impact of the Financial Crisis in Public Transportation,” illustrating the painful cuts transit systems have sustained at the state and local level. The cuts plateaued as unemployment reached 10 percent and Americans were demanding more transportation options, not less.

It is no secret that California has fallen hard as a result of the recession, but the severity of the cuts to public transportation in California was vastly disproportionate to the rest of the country. The reason for this was no mystery: the State was raiding dedicated transit funds every year in order to alleviate other budgetary shortfalls since 2007.

More than two dozen transit providers throughout the state enacted some combination of fee hikes and service reductions, according to our map of transit cutbacks. BART in the San Francisco Bay Area increased its base fare by 17 percent, and many transit systems in Southern California raised fares as much as 20 percent. The County Connection in suburban Contra Costa reduced its bus lines by 23 percent, and rural areas were hit hard as well. The California Transit Association, or CTA, an affiliation of local transit providers, logged 38 agencies facing cuts of some kind in their own version of our transit cuts map.

Last week’s state Supreme Court’s decision helps explain how things got this bad.

Since 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has successfully diverted $3.6 billion from the state’s transit fund to deficit reduction, prompting a lawsuit from the CTA to get the money back. The CTA argued that the raided funds came from gas tax revenues specifically designated for public transit. By refusing to review a lower-court decision in favor of the association, the high court effectively ruled Schwarzenegger’s raid illegal, ending the seizure of desperately-needed transit funds.

This is a huge victory and vindication for local transit providers. Randy Rentschler, director of the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “everyone knows that the state’s in a budget crisis, but that crisis also exists in local governments in part because the state has taken transit money away from local entities.”

The case has broader implications for public transportation as well.

In tough budget years, Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature are constantly looking for places to trim and local governments are an easy target. But money saved is not money earned, as local cuts tend to bite the state later through increased demand for social services and counties being unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens. The decision will hopefully lead to more caution.

Most importantly, California can no longer rob Peter to pay Paul.

But at this point, it remains unclear how much of the original $3.6 billion will be returned to the transit fund, and ultimately, to local providers to preserve vital service for riders. That money is desperately needed, not only because of the millions of Californians who rely on public transportation for their day-to-day mobility, but also because many communities are on the cusp of becoming success stories. Transportation for America’s “Stranded” report profiles how efforts in Sacramento, Orange and Contra Counties have already improved quality of life and relieved congestion, highlighting the need to keep up the support.

FAQ: Transportation bill expires, emergency extension passed

The Senate Garage Fountain (Olmstead Fountain) and the US Capitol Originally uploaded by kimberlyfaye

UPDATED: We posted a similar question-and-answer document covering the specific issue of rescissions. Read that here.

As you may have read on Streetsblog Capitol Hill, where Elana Schor has been closely tracking the inexorable march toward expiration of the old transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU), the Senate passed an emergency one-month extension of the current law last night, just hours before the deadline.

There have been a lot of questions flying around today, so we’re going to try to post some simplified answers to clear up any confusion. Federal transportation policy is not the simplest code to decipher, but we’ll try our best to start with the basics.

The short explanation?

The Senate failed to pass an extension of their own to match the House’s recent 3-month extension before the transportation bill expired last night.

To prevent transportation spending from stopping entirely, Congress added a one-month extension of current transportation law to a last-minute bill (a Continuing Resolution) that keeps the federal government from shutting down in case they don’t pass the required individual spending bills for the next year. The one-month Continuing Resolution did not address the scheduled loss of $8.7 billion in transportation funds that will be taken from states, starting today.

Click through the jump below if you want much more detailed information. (more…)

Tell Congress to make a historic investment in high speed rail

Congress is heading towards a decisive, historic moment on investing in high speed rail for America. But the outcome is far from certain.

In the next few weeks, Congress will decide whether or not to give the Department of Transportation $1.2 billion or $4 billion on high speed rail for the next year. $8 billion was allocated for planning and implementing clean, efficient, high speed train travel in the economic stimulus earlier this year, and with another $4 billion, we’d be making a historic $12 billion investment in high speed rail to help us move into the 21st century, unclog our congested airports and airspace, and provide a new clean, efficient alternative for speedy travel between major metro areas.

Sometime in the next week or two, Congress will decide whether or not to give DOT the amount in the House version of the bill ($4 billion), or the Senate version ($1.2 billion).

Tell Congress to keep $4 billion in the bill at www.fourbillion.com

Transportation for America is partnering with U.S. PIRG, Virginians for High Speed Rail, and the Midwest High Speed Rail Association to send a message to Congress that now is the time to make a historic investment in high speed rail.

Midwest High Speed Rail Association Logo Fed of State PIRGS logo Virginians for high speed rail

Want the wonky details? As you may remember, the Senate passed the bill that funds the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development last week. The bill that passed last week is what’s known as a (yearly) appropriations bill, where the budget for the department and the programs are finalized and officially given their money by Congress. The House passed their version of the DOT/HUD funding bill several weeks ago, so the differences between the two bills will be ironed out in a conference committee very soon. The House and the Senate will select conferees to reconcile the two versions of the bill, before sending a final bill back to the House and Senate for a last vote and then to President Obama’s desk.

Let’s tell them to send the president a bill with $4 billion for high speed rail.

Post this action on Twitter, or with other tools via the button below.

Improving access to healthcare by improving transportation options

Photo by Dan Burden

Yesterday we noted transportation’s impact on health care costs, and how expanding access to public transportation and investing more money in complete streets safe for walking and biking can improve overall health and lower healthcare costs.

At the same time, we should remember that having transportation options and the ability to easily get where you need to go have a huge impact on whether or not you receive care. Folks who can’t get to the doctor or who must wait on rides from family and friends are more likely to stay sick.

A study of over 1,059 households in 12 western North Carolina counties tests the relationship between transportation options and healthcare utilization while adjusting for the effects of personal characteristics, health characteristics, and distance. The report found that people with reliable access to healthcare visited their doctor 2.29 times more frequently for serious illness and 1.92 times more frequently for regular checkups than those who did not.

The ability to reliably and affordably make it to doctor’s visits or healthcare appointments is also a matter of transportation equity. Minorities, households in rural areas, the disabled, and low-income Americans face even greater hurdles because many cannot drive and public transportation is often unavailable, inaccessible or unreliable. (Not to mention public transportation, paratransit or dial-a-ride programs being cut left and right)

We already know Americans are tired of being stuck in traffic and are clamoring for more options for getting around. But they are also demanding prevention as a top health care reform priority, and overwhelmingly support increasing funding for prevention programs to reduce disease and keep people healthy.

Meeting the health care needs of all Americans will require funding infrastructure projects that can create more opportunities for physical activity. The healthcare bill Congress is currently working on is just another opportuniy to demand that transportation options and access issues are more broadly included in the debate. It is not just the cost of care, but the ability to access that care that’s proven to reduce hospitalization rates for chronic conditions.

States clamor for high-speed rail stimulus funds as applications pour into DC

Amtrak Acela 654 Northbound Originally uploaded by Jim Frazier

When the stimulus passed in February, $8 billion for high-speed rail was added at the 25th hour, at the behest of the Obama administration. In the days since, states have scrambled to prepare their proposals to receive a share of the money, which will be distributed via a process of competitive grants.

When the administration’s blueprint was released in April, President Obama said “high-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

With states competing for their share of the $8 billion to start developing and building high-speed corridors, competition was sure to be tough. As recently as yesterday, we had heard that $93 billion in grant applications were submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Just today, we saw this statement from DOT Secretary LaHood’s office detailing an even higher number: 278 pre-applications for grant funding totaling $102 billion. 40 states and the District of Columbia submitted proposals to get a share of the $8 billion available in the stimulus.

“The response has been tremendous and shows that the country is ready for high-speed rail,” Secretary LaHood said. “It’s time to look beyond our highways and invest in public transportation services like rail, which will enhance regional mobility and reduce our carbon footprint.”

Next up for the DOT and the Federal Railroad Administration is figuring out which of these 278 applications to move forward in the process. The first step will likely be figuring out which proposals best line up with the administration’s already-released blueprint for the 10 national high-speed rail corridors. The first grantees will be announced in the fall, according to the DOT release.

Does transportation have an impact on growing health care costs?

Albuquerque8 Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Streets safe for walking and biking — especially streets that encourage incidental exercise by encouraging walking or biking — can help residents be more healthy, lowering the health care costs associated with obesity and inactivity.

With Congress directing their attention to the contentious debate over health care reform and how to pay for it, it seems that transportation has been relegated to the back burner. In the meantime, evidence is continuing to mount that transportation investments — what we build and where — have an enormous impact on our health and the financial bottom line of providing health care.

Last week the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA) released The Economic Costs of Overweight, Obesity and Physical Inactivity Among California Adults. In a state making national headlines for its current budget crisis, the study found that (in 2006) “overweight, obesity and physical inactivity cost the state $41.2 billion – $21.0 billion for overweight and obesity, and $20.2 billion for physical inactivity.”

An even more shocking recent study found that the already-dangerous effects of air pollution are magnified for pregnant women living near busy roads.

According to this study from a team of researchers from the University of California, Irvine, exposure to traffic-generated air pollution during pregnancy increases the risk of preeclampsia and premature birth. The study examined over 80,000 birth records and found that the risk of the life-threatening condition preeclampsia increased 33% and the risk of premature birth rose 128% in women living closest to congested corridors.

Many other negative health effects from vehicle emissions, congestion and air pollution have already been documented — with low-income and minority populations typically experiencing the most harmful side effects due to where interstates and highways get built.

The CCPHA report on obesity included some concrete policy recommendations for improving public health, a few of which are connected to our transportation spending decisions.

Locate residential, commercial and office buildings close together so more residents can walk and bike to meet their daily needs
Build neighborhoods with safe and attractive parks and other places for recreational exercise
Create transportation corridors that support pedestrians and bicyclists

Including some realistic goals for improving public health in the transportation bill — one of T4 America’s six national transportation objectives for the bill — would be a great place to start. If we’re ever going to truly move away from a prescriptive health care model to a preventative model — saving us billions in health care costs — we’re going to have to address more than just the skyrocketing costs of treating illnesses and diseases — we’re going to have to look upstream and address some of the contributing factors.

Doing so could keep us healthier and save us billions.

With research from Becca Homa

Driving down in 2008, congestion down much more

Interstate 24 Traffic Originally uploaded by Transportation for America

Due to the impact of high gas prices, the economic slowdown, and a growing preference for public transportation and other options for getting around, congestion was down in 2008 over 2007, marking the first two-year decrease in congestion since the Texas Transportation Institute began keeping track in 1982. Today, TTI released their bi-annual Urban Mobility Report today on the state of congestion and traffic in the U.S.

Some key findings:

Travelers spent one hour less stuck in traffic in 2007 than they did the year before and wasted one gallon less gasoline than the year before. The differences are small, but they represent a rare break in near-constant growth in traffic over 25 years.

The overall cost (based on wasted fuel and lost productivity) reached $87.2 billion in 2007 — more than $750 for every U.S. traveler.

The total amount of wasted fuel topped 2.8 billion gallons — three weeks’ worth of gas for every traveler.

The amount of wasted time totaled 4.2 billion hours — nearly one full work week (or vacation week) for every traveler.

One cause of the decrease in congestion is the same cause responsible for the lower numbers of highway fatalities — Americans have been driving less and less. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth rates have been in decline since 2005 and in 2007, total VMT and per capita VMT actually decreased for the first time since World War II. High gas prices and the recent economic downturn have contributed to these declines, but VMT was actually in decline well before the shock of increased gas prices and the recession, and has continued to fall even as gas prices plummeted over the last year.

And while total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) went down just slightly, congestion is down much more significantly.

According to Feburary numbers from INRIX, a reputable traffic statistics service, just a 3.7% drop in vehicle miles traveled in 2008 resulted in a 30% drop in congestion in our 100 most congested metro areas. That means each commuter spent 13 less hours stuck in traffic in 2008 over the previous year. And in slight contrast to the TTI report, the report found that overall, “99 of the top 100 most populated cities in the U.S. experienced decreases in traffic congestion levels in 2008 as compared to the prior year.” Small reductions in how much we drive each year have a much larger impact on congestion.

The best way to reduce congestion and help Americans save money, time and fuel is to get smarter about managing traffic and offer increased options such as public transportation, telecommuting and incentives for carpooling, bicycling and walking. There is ample evidence that shows that reducing peak hour traffic by just a small percentage will dramatically reduce congestion and all of the costs associated with traffic.”

— James Corless, T4 America

There’s no doubt that the sagging economy had a hand in reducing how much we drive. But regardless of the current economy, most Americans seem to be looking for ways to drive less — not more. So what if we invested more in the positive ways to reduce the amount we have to drive by making other options for getting around accessible, convenient, and available to more people?

With public transportation ridership still going up — even as driving is going down — it’s clear that people who have choices for getting around use them. People are looking for other convenient ways to travel that can get them out of traffic and save them time and money.

And as the INRIX numbers show, if we can make it easier to get around and increase the options for doing so, everyone behind the wheel benefits as congestion decreases. (And despite the decrease overall, the current $87 billion in congestion costs isn’t good news, by any stretch of the imagination.)

It’s unquestionable that the recession has had an impact, giving us some momentary slack in congestion. But what will we do with the breather? When the economy begins to pick back up again and people start driving more, will we head straight back into gridlock? With driving down and public transportation up, will we make more investments in the kinds of transportation options people are clamoring for, the kinds of options that can reduce congestion and make travel more painless for everyone?

Or will congestion simply mount as the economy rebounds?

Administration releases their principles for an 18-month transportation bill

When DOT Secretary LaHood was on Capitol Hill a few weeks ago discussing the Obama Administration’s plan for a transitional transportation bill, he mentioned that their plan for an 18-month extension would “enact critical reforms” while stopping short of a fundamental overhaul of the program — leaving that for the full six-year bill.

A lot of transportation advocates were left wondering what sort of reforms the administration would propose. Today we got a first look at their general proposal (via Transportation Weekly.) Update: Elana Schor @ Streetsblog has the details on the National Infrastructure Bank.

As you may remember, Chairman James Oberstar and his House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are at odds over the timing of the authorization bill. Oberstar and company want to pass a full six-year authorization bill by September, while the Administration favors an 18-month transitional bill to patch the soon-to-be insolvent Highway Trust Fund.

At the forefront of the administration proposal is a $20 billion transfer from the general fund to keep the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts in the Highway Trust Fund from going bankrupt, keeping them solvent until March 2011. They propose to return the money to the general fund over 10 years.

In a section titled “Downpayment on Reform,” the administration outlines three proposals, including $310 million to help states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) voluntarily improve their project evaluation process, helping them choose worthy projects based on data , preparing them “for improved accountability standards and merit criteria in the long-term reauthorization.”

The second proposal would provide $10 million for “USDOT to develop performance goals and establish guidelines for states and localities on project evaluation.” And in language that sounds similar to the stimulus spending, the third proposal aims to improve the transparency and accountability in transportation spending, to “lay the groundwork for further accountability reforms in the long-term reauthorization.”

Lastly is a section on livable communities and improving regional access:

Livability: developing guidelines for community plans and providing funding for approved projects with special emphasis on convenience of transportation options, reductions in travel times, smart growth, preservation of open space, and more integrated responses to land use and transportation needs.

Chairman Oberstar is still opposed to any extension and it’s worth noting that any 18-month proposal would have to pass through his committee in the House. Read the full memo to Congress below. (more…)

How have states fared with the billions in transportation stimulus funds?

You may recall that the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that passed in February had nearly $30 billion allocated for transportation investments. That money was given out to states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) — largely free of any criteria or requirements for what projects it should be spent on.

Smart Growth America released a report today examining how well states have been spending these billions. As they say on the Smart Growth America blog today, not only did the money arrive in a time of economic recession, but “at a time of embarrassingly large backlogs of road and bridge repairs, inadequate and underfunded public transportation systems, and too-few convenient, affordable transportation options.”

So after 120 days, how have states done in addressing these pressing needs and investing in progress for their communities?

After analyzing project descriptions provided by states and MPOs, Smart Growth America found forward looking states and communities that used the stimulus money as flexibly as possible, repairing roads and bridges and making the kinds of smart, 21st century transportation investments that their communities need to support strong economic growth.

Other states and communities missed this golden opportunity to create jobs while making progress on their most pressing transportation needs. These states spent their precious funds on building new roads rather than repairing existing roads, and ignored the chance to spend the money flexibly on the kinds of options that their residents really want — like public transportation or streets safe for walking and biking — leaving their communities stuck in traffic and stuck in the past.

…Despite the golden opportunity of extra funding, most states did not use the opportunity to make as much progress as possible on long-term goals. Even though repair backlogs can stretch years or decades into the future, nearly one-third of the money, $6.6 billion, went towards roadway new capacity projects. At a time when public transportation ridership is hitting all-time highs and the budget crunch is causing transit agencies to cut routes, service and jobs, an abysmal 2.8% was spent on public transportation. Only 0.9% percent was spent on non-motorized projects (i.e., bike and pedestrian projects).

Read more about the report and download the full version from Smart Growth America.

What does Oberstar’s proposal do for the New Starts transit program?

MetroRail, Preston Station, Downtown Houston Originally uploaded by euthman

Riders wait for the train at a stop on Houston’s new light rail line

Americans are taking the train (and the bus) like never before, and public transportation ridership reached its highest level in more than 50 years in 2008. More than 25 new light rail or streetcar systems have opened in the last 30 years, and communities across the country are looking to relieve congestion, spur urban development, and provide their residents with more options for getting around.

In the last two years, new light rail lines have opened in what might be considered the unlikely locales of Phoenix, Arizona, Houston, Texas, and Charlotte, North Carolina. According to numbers from Reconnecting America, the newly-opened Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis and the Red Line in Houston outperformed their ridership projections 15 years ahead of schedule.

What’s clear from these examples is that cities of all sizes are looking to meet the burgeoning demand for quality public transportation service. Of course, with Chairman James Oberstar’s 90-page proposal for the next transportation bill coming out this morning from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, we are left with an important question — how would these current or future transit systems fare under his proposed program?

Getting approval for New and Small Starts — two federal programs that distribute funds for the construction of transit capital projects — has become a cumbersome process, taking an average of 10 years for transit projects to move through planning and design phases to receive a grant.

Under the previous administration, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) began unduly weighting cost-effectiveness (CEI) — or how much travel time was saved per dollar spent — as the primary factor when considering which projects to fund. As Oberstar’s proposal states, this method has given “inadequate consideration to other important benefits that new transit projects bring to communities.” Benefits such as economic development spurred by new transit lines, increased access to jobs and housing, reduced emissions and energy consumption per capita and the efficient land use and walkable neighborhoods that often result from new transit investments have been swept aside in favor of this “cost effectiveness” metric.

Chairman Oberstar’s proposal for the transportation bill contains some proposed revisions to the New/Small Starts program that could speed up the approval process and make sure that all of the benefits of new public transportation service are considered.

Oberstar’s proposal contains two key reforms: The first would streamline the program application and approval process by eliminating overly burdensome steps and paperwork. (p.43) And perhaps more importantly, his second proposal “equalizes the treatment of proposed transit projects and elevates the importance of the benefits that will occur in the community once the project is built.” This essentially means that the other positive benefits from transit would be considered when deciding what projects to fund.

Underneath that recommendation in the proposal is a list of some new requirements that could even the playing field and broaden the range of grants given out to new transit projects. Here are three notable ones:

Require the FTA to consider all benefits of proposed projects in relation to the proposed Federal investment level.
Eliminate the requirement that projects be rated based on “cost-effectiveness,” which considers time savings to users as the only benefit of projects.
Require FTA to weigh all benefits comparably, including economic development, energy savings, increased mobility and access, and congestion relief.

Hopefully, these two reforms would streamline the New & Small Starts process and ensure that the federal governments considers more of the benefits that transit brings to communities when deciding which projects to fund. But the details in the full bill will be key. The outline lacks some concrete information on how much focus will be placed on creating transit-oriented development and affordable housing — both of which can help boost ridership numbers and cost-effectiveness. If we want to accurately account for all potential benefits of transit investments, T4 America believes that we need to link development, housing and public transportation to reflect the deep connection between these issues.

Sec. LaHood proposes 18-month extension of current transportation bill

This morning on Capitol Hill, DOT Secretary Ray LaHood proposed an 18-month extension of the current SAFETEA-LU transportation authorization bill. Beyond simply extending the current bill, LaHood indicated that he wants to include some reforms in the 18-month extension — including a focus on metro areas, extensive cost-benefit analysis, and a commitment to “livable communities” — but was short on other specifics.

No word yet on how this will affect the proposed transportation bill outline to be released by Rep. James Oberstar tomorrow morning. Be sure to check back over the next few days for the latest.

From the DOT press room:

“This morning, I went to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress on the situation with the Highway Trust Fund. I am proposing an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization that will replenish the Highway Trust Fund. If this step is not taken the trust fund will run out of money as soon as late August and states will be in danger of losing the vital transportation funding they need and expect.

“As part of this, I am proposing that we enact critical reforms to help us make better investment decisions with cost-benefit analysis, focus on more investments in metropolitan areas and promote the concept of livability to more closely link home and work. The Administration opposes a gas tax increase during this challenging, recessionary period, which has hit consumers and businesses hard across our country.

“I recognize that there will be concerns raised about this approach. However, with the reality of our fiscal environment and the critical demand to address our infrastructure investments in a smarter, more focused approach, we should not rush legislation. We should work together on a full reauthorization that best meets the demands of the country. The first step is making sure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent. The next step is addressing our transportation priorities over the long term.”

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has a story up covering LaHood’s proposal, and includes a quote from Rep. Oberstar, responding to the idea of an extension:

In a meeting with reporters Wednesday, Mr. Oberstar was adamant that Congress must pass a new law before the current one expires.

“Extension of current law is unacceptable,” Mr. Oberstar said. “Now is the time to move.”

UPDATE 2: Michael Cooper of the New York Times covers the proposed extension, and gets a statement from Jim Berard, spokesman for Rep. Oberstar. “The chairman is not too pleased with the administration’s proposal,” he said.

What do Americans really think about spending on transportation?

Parade Magazine has an article about transportation up on their website that includes an online poll. They question asks readers, “should America divert some funding from highways and bridges to invest in public transit?”

There are many problems with this question, but even with the false framing of this debate, results are currently split near the 50/50 mark. The most glaring issue with the poll is that it makes it seem like there’s something written in stone determining that federal transportation money is “roads” money — instead of money that should be spent on whatever can best keep us moving and give us the most bang for our buck.

Spending money on public transportation or other transportation options won’t prevent us from repairing and maintaining our existing roads and bridges. In fact, our roads and bridges aren’t in poor shape because we don’t spend enough on roads overall — it’s because we’ve neglected to maintain our existing roadways and instead spent taxpayer dollars on more new roads and highways, whether or not these were the best investments of our transportation dollars

Regardless of where we’ve spent money in the past or “what we used to do,” people are ready for something different.

Rather than asking Americans if we should “take” money from roads, what happens when you ask Americans a more basic questions: “Where should we spend our transportation money?”

Earlier this year, Transportation for America and the National Association of Realtors did just that in our own poll. (Background on the poll here and here). The bottom line? An overwhelming majority of Americans believe restoring existing roads and bridges and expanding transportation options should take precedence over road-building alone.

Given that the U.S. population will increase by one-hundred million people by 2050, which of the following transportation approaches do you prefer to accommodate this growth?

Build and improve rail systems, such as commuter rail, light rail, and subways	Build new highways and freeways	Not sure
75%	20%	5%

I’m going to mention types of transportation, and I’d like you to tell me which one or two you think are not getting enough attention and emphasis from the federal government.

Trains or light rail systems	Roads	Buses	Bike paths or trails	Sidewalks	None	Not sure
56%	27%	21%	15%	14%	2%	3%

Many communities experience traffic congestion. I’m going to read you two statements about traffic congestion and I’d like you to tell me which of these is closer to your view: A) Some people say that we need to build more roads and expand existing roads to help reduce traffic congestion. B) Some people say that we need to improve public transportation, including trains and buses, and make it easier to walk and bike to help reduce traffic congestion. Which of these is closer to your view?

Improve public transportation	Build more roads and expand existing roads	Not sure
67%	27%	6%

Which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your area?

Improving public transportation	Developing communities where people do not have to drive as much	Building new roads	Not sure
47%	25%	20%	8%

As the federal government makes its plans for transportation funding in 2009, which ONE of the following should be the top priority?

Maintaining and repairing roads, highways, freeways and bridges	Expanding and improving bus, rail, and other public transportation	Expanding and improving roads, highways, freeways and bridges	Not sure
50%	31%	16%	3%

Today’s briefing on Complete Streets — and the view from Decatur, Georgia

Decatur Mayor Bill Floyd Originally uploaded by TimothyJ

Mayor Bill Floyd of Decatur, Georgia helped get complete streets policies adopted in his city, resulting in a safer, more livable enjoyable city. Tell your representatives to support the Complete Streets Act of 2009 in the House and Senate.

With the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and a few of our key partners this morning, Transportation for America held a briefing on Capitol Hill about Complete Streets — and how putting complete streets into the next transportation bill will go a long way towards improving health, safety and livability for Americans.

Tell your representatives to support the Complete Streets Act of 2009 in the House and Senate.

Decatur, Georgia Mayor Bill Floyd, one of the panelists, told the story of how building complete streets in Decatur have made the city safer and more livable for its residents and visitors. Decatur, a city of about 18,000 just six miles east of downtown Atlanta, adopted ‘complete streets’ policies to ensure that their roadways get designed and improved for all users. But it wasn’t easy to do, and Mayor Floyd said they still face numerous hurdles from the state government.

Why do we need a federal law? Because current plans require variances from GDOT (Georgia Department of Transportation). For every project, it takes a variance. If we got a bike and sidewalk approved, and went back for another one, we’d have to get another variance. Federal laws are applied differently from state to state even.

Just like many Georgia cities, it has several state-maintained highways that pass through it. And those get treated the same way by the Georgia Department of Transportation whether they run through urban Decatur or rural south Georgia.

He pointed specifically to a mid-block crosswalk in downtown — where pedestrians come and go all day long from the MARTA transit hub, shops, and restaurants — with a raised crosswalk and a yield sign in the road between the lanes of traffic. He pointed to a photo of the crossing and noted “that mid-lane crossing sign is in violation of GDOT — they call it a vehicle impediment.” They succeeded in getting the road de-classified as a state highway — a long, difficult process, but one that resulted in them being able to control the design of the road.

One of the biggest reasons why Decatur wants streets safe for walking and biking has to do with their 3,000 children. The city, while only 4 square miles in size, has its own school system with pre-K all the way up to Decatur High School right off the city square. As a result many kids in the city should be within a mile of their school, and those children should be able to walk or bike to school. “Kids love to walk to school and ride those bikes,” Mayor Floyd said. But the streets just weren’t safe enough.

They utilized money in the Safe Routes to School Program (yes, the one proposed for cuts) to improve the safety of their streets, giving kids the chance to be outside and get some incidental exercise on their way to and from school.

Research shows that well-designed sidewalks, bike lanes, intersections, and other street features to accommodate all modes of travel can significantly reduce injuries, deaths, and automobile crashes. Communities adopting the complete streets approach are discovering additional benefits including higher rates of physical activity among residents—an important factor for improved health—and more vibrant business districts and neighborhoods.

Tell your representatives to support the Complete Streets Act of 2009 in the House and Senate.

Highway Trust Fund could need as much as $17 billion to stay in the black

Flickr photo originally uploaded by Madison Guy

In September last year, Congress had to provide an emergency infusion of $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund for the first time in history to keep it from going broke. This transfer of cash from the general fund to an account that is supposed to be completely self-supporting showed us that our transportation system is in serious financial trouble.

Unfortunately, we’re expecting the Highway Trust Fund to run out of money even sooner this year.

News broke yesterday that the Obama administration is telling members of the U.S. Senate that the fund — which pays for projects approved in the transportation bill — will go broke by August if an emergency infusion of at least $7 billion isn’t approved. And it could need as much as $10 billion more to make it through the next fiscal year, which ends in September 2010.

With Congress talking about a transportation bill this year in the range of $450 billion and current gas tax revenues failing to cover the costs of the last $286 billion transportation bill, it’s clear that we need a new method of paying for our transportation infrastructure. We’re driving less and less, not just because of expensive gas, but also due to changing demographics and consumer preferences, and it’s unlikely that gas tax revenues will go up any time soon.

Predictably, many sensible voices are calling for the gas tax to be raised, which has been going down in real terms as inflation increases and the tax stays fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon. Both of the Congressionally-mandated transportation study commissions recommended an increase in the gas tax. But while we certainly more money from some somewhere to pay for the transportation investments we need, it’s imperative that we change the broken system before we pour new money into it.

The way things works now, states are esssentially encouraged have their residents drive more to increase gas tax revenues, which allows them to contribute more to the federal government and get more money back in return. We need a system that encourages states to improve mobility and safety, reduce congestion, and meet other performance measures, instead of building new roads to increase miles driven.

We need a federal transportation system that works, not the same broken thing at twice the price.

No new money without reforming the broken system.

Transportation Secretary affirms smart principles for US transportation system

National Bike Summit – Day two-8 Originally uploaded by BikePortland.org

DOT Secretary Ray LaHood speaks at the National Bike Summit in Washington, DC

“Livable and Sustainable Communities.”

Those four words might not be at the top of the list of what one would expect to hear from the person in charge of how the federal government spends our tax dollars on all forms of transportation — ports, railroads, highways, interstates, sidewalks, bike lanes and more — but that’s exactly what U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood named as a primary goal for DOT while testifying before a Senate Committee yesterday (ahead of T4 America.)

In his remarks, he made it clear that DOT and the Obama administration see the deep connections between where and how we spend transportation dollars and the quality of life for everyday Americans.

One of the clear issues with our national transportation program since 1991 is that it’s been like a huge ship without a rudder — spending billions each year without any clear goals or vision for exactly what those billions should accomplish for us. Economic development? More travel options for everyone? Making transportation affordable and safe for all Americans?

After talking at length about the many challenges facing America, Secretary LaHood made it clear that DOT will be governed by some very clear principles in the future, including better quality of life as a goal for transportation spending:

With these great challenges it is essential that our transportation policies be framed so that we can meet these demands and at the same time be consistent with the major goals I have established for guiding the actions of the Department of Transportation: economic recovery; safety; and livable and sustainable communities will be the key organizing themes as we in the Department reformulate existing policies and develop new policy directions for the future.

You can download his full remarks from the committee web site here, (.pdf) but continue reading for a few select quotes: (more…)