Skip to main content

Tag: funding

Phoenix voters approve a plan to raise money for transportation; vastly expand the city’s light rail and bus networks

On Tuesday night, voters in Phoenix, AZ, approved a slight increase in the sales tax to help fund a 35-year, $31.5 billion package to greatly improve and expand Phoenix’s light rail and bus systems, as well as other transportation improvements. The vote is further evidence that voters are willing to tax themselves for transportation — especially when they know what they’re getting.

* Final results won’t be in for a few days but at a 55-45 margin in reported results so far, advocates are claiming victory. -Ed.

The measure on yesterday’s ballot, Proposition 104, will raise $17.3 billion by nearly doubling the current 0.4 percent sales tax that’s currently devoted to transportation, increasing it by 0.3 percent on purchases in the city and devoting those extra dollars to transportation.

The city will use the bulk of the new revenue, plus other money from grants and transit fares, to improve and expand bus service and expand the city’s new light rail system. The plan also includes money for improving streets, sidewalks and bike lanes. The anticipated funding breaks down like this:

  • 55% ($17.5 billion) will go to improve bus service, including $2.9 billion to increase frequency of current service and and $1.9 billion for new bus service.
  • 28% ($8.9 billion) to expanding light rail or high-capacity transit—allowing for 42 new miles of light rail, tripling the current system length.
  • 7% ($2.2 billion) will go toward existing light rail service
  • 7% ($2.4 billion) for city streets, sidewalks, and bike lanes, which includes a plan to add over 1,000 miles of new bike lanes.

Expanding the city’s transit system (and new light rail service) was a core part of incumbent Mayor Greg Stanton’s campaign platform — who also won re-election yesterday. Mayor Stanton has repeatedly stated his belief that a robust transit system was essential for Phoenix’s long-term economic prospects.

“(It will be) getting people to educational opportunities, getting them to jobs, creating economic development opportunities. Bar none, it’s going to be awesome,” Stanton told KTAR news this week.

MovePHX , a local transportation advocacy group that also ran the campaign for Proposition 104, presented a compelling vision to the voters that transit is essential for moving citizens around more effectively and efficiently and for helping the region cope with expected population growth. With a specific plan in place for how and where to invest the money, the voters agreed that a more robust transit system is needed for the city to grow to its full potential.

Phoenix’s light rail system, which began running December 27, 2008, has had over 14.2 million riders so far in [fiscal year] 2015, and the service has been successful in attracting companies to the city that want to be close to reliable transit service to better serve their workers. Companies – like State Farm insurance – have moved to downtown Phoenix in search of a good spot near Phoenix’s light rail system to attract younger workers that like having a convenient transit options.

Votes like Phoenix’s are further evidence that city and state residents are willing to pay for transportation-related projects when they know what they’re getting. Ballot measures for transportation pass about 70 percent of the time, and success (or failure) often correlates with how specific (or vague) the proposal is.

Voters in Seattle and Utah will be going to the ballots over the next few years to vote on similar transportation plans. Seattle-area voters will decide in 2016 whether or not to approve a $15 billion package that will allow the region’s Sound Transit agency to expand light rail there. In Utah, voters (in 12 counties so far) will be deciding this November whether to increase countywide sales taxes to raise new money that can be invested in almost any local need, whether roads, transit, or safer, complete streets.

More and more cities (and states) are seizing the opportunity to raise new money to invest in their ambitious transportation plans crafted to help them stay competitive in the future. Former NYC DOT head Janette Sadik-Khan had a succinct takeaway about the Phoenix vote on Twitter this morning:

10 things you need to know about the Senate’s DRIVE Act

The Senate approved their multi-year transportation authorization bill by a 65-34 vote this week. You can view our full statement on the DRIVE Act here from T4America Chairman John Robert Smith. Meanwhile, here are 10 things that you need to know about what’s in the Senate bill.

 

1) Funding from deficit spending vs. pay-as-you-go

How do you pay for a six-year transportation authorization when the transportation fund is broke and Congress is unwilling to raise the federal gasoline tax? For the DRIVE Act, the Senate bridged the gap between dwindling user fee revenues and total spending by getting creative. In the end, they cobbled together $46 billion in non-transportation-related funds, fees and accounting maneuvers.

Among some of the more controversial “pay-fors” in the Senate bill is a requirement to sell 100 million barrels of the 693 million barrels in the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between 2018 and 2025, estimated to bring in $9 billion if it can be sold at $95 per barrel ($30-40 more per-barrel than today’s price). Add to that the indexing of customs fees (ironic for a Congress unwilling to index gasoline taxes), an extension of airport TSA fees through 2025, closing estate fee loopholes, and reducing the “fixed dividend rate” the Federal Reserve pays to banks.

But while the bill needs 10 years to recognize some of the new revenues or savings that won’t occur until the 2025, it would instantly transfer billions from the general fund to the transportation fund, increasing the deficit. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) called it “generational theft,” while T4A Chair John Robert Smith asked, “Is it fiscally responsible to place the cost of paying for three years of transportation investments on the backs of our children and grandchildren?”

A final point of clarification on the length of Senate bill: the DRIVE Act authorizes six years of spending, but provides only three years of funding certainty. In 2018, Congress will have to find an additional $51 billion to fully fund the bill for the remaining three years of its authorization. Despite calls from a diverse cross-section of industry and advocacy groups for a “long-term, sustainable funding solution” for transportation, the DRIVE Act is patched together with temporary and speculative “pay-fors,” the type that are only going to get harder to find three years from now.

PolicyTen-year savings
Reduce the fixed dividend rate the Federal Reserve pays larger banks$17.10 billion
Sell 101 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve$9.05 billion
Index customs fees for inflation$5.70 billion
Extend current budget treatment of TSA fees from 2023 to 2025$3.50 billion
Use private debt collectors to collect overdue tax payments$2.48 billion
Extend Fannie/Freddie guarantee fees$1.90 billion
Require lenders to report more information on outstanding mortgages$1.80 billion
Close an estate tax loophole about the reporting of property$1.50 billion
Clarify the statute of limitations on reassessing certain tax returns$1.20 billion
Revoke or deny passports for those with seriously delinquent taxes$0.40 billion
Devote civil penalties for motor safety violations to the Highway Trust Fund$0.35 billion
Stop paying interest when companies overpay for mineral leases$0.32 billion
Adjust tax-filing deadlines for businesses$0.30 billion
Allow employers to transfer excess defined-benefit plan assets to retiree medical accounts and group-term life insurance$0.20 billion
TOTAL$45.80 Billion

2) Local communities get the short end of the stick…again

The DRIVE Act bypasses America’s cities and towns, reducing the already small amount of funding they directly control to invest in locally-driven projects by nearly $200 million in the first year alone compared to MAP-21. We were extremely disappointed to see a bipartisan amendment from Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), with support from Sens. Casey (D-PA), Durbin (D-IL), Peters (D-MI) and Stabenow (D-MI) fail to receive a fair hearing on the floor. Their plan would have put a larger share of transportation dollars in the hands of local governments by increasing the amount of flexible federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars directly provided to metropolitan areas of all sizes and allowing direct access to the funding for rural areas through a grant program. By failing to bring more dollars, control and accountability closer to the local level, the bill fails to restore the trust of the American people in how our transportation decisions are being made.

3) Progress on a national freight policy but with funding stuck in 20th century silos

The Senate recognized the economic importance of moving goods efficiently throughout the country by including a new freight program that also includes real funding: almost $1 billion in the first year, and up to $2.5 billion annually towards the end of the authorization.

Unfortunately, 90 percent of the dollars reserved for the freight program are restricted to highway projects. This decision runs counter to the realities of how our freight moves: generally, no one product gets to its destination by one mode of transportation, but rather relies on a interconnected and efficient system of ports, rail lines, highways, urban streets and intermodal yards all working together.

There’s a mixed message here. The bill requires USDOT, states and MPOs to conduct thoughtful national- and state-level freight planning to analyze the condition and performance of the freight transportation system and identify the highest priority needs to create greater efficiency and reliability in freight movement, regardless of mode. After all this planning is done, the Senate bill instructs states and MPOs to focus only on highway projects at the expense of rail lines, ports and a truly intermodal network.

4) For the first time, intercity passenger rail is included in a surface transportation bill

While the popular shorthand for the transportation authorization is “the highway bill,” the nation’s transportation program has included dedicated funding for public transportation and bicycling and walking since 1982 and 1991 respectively. But intercity passenger rail has been consistently left out of the overall surface transportation legislation – until now.

For the first time, the nation’s passenger rail policy is included in the bill, laying the groundwork for further improvements and expansion of the nation’s passenger rail service to match the recent unparalleled growth in ridership. Previously, the passenger rail bill has always passed as a standalone authorization, but the DRIVE Act would enshrine the policy in the nation’s surface transportation bill. While the rail programs would still require annual appropriations for funding, it takes an important step forward in providing Amtrak sustainable funding and helping to expand service to meet booming demand.

5) Popular TIGER program fails to win a permanent seat at the table

The USDOT’s competitive TIGER grants represent one of the few ways local communities can directly access federal funds for their local priority projects. While disaster was averted as the bill was being drafted and TIGER hasn’t been changed in this bill, the Senate missed a major opportunity to authorize the program and make it a permanent part of the nation’s transportation policy. If this bill passed, supportive lawmakers will have to continue to fight each year for TIGER funding through the annual appropriations process, resulting in up and down fluctuations in available funding year to year. That makes it tough for local communities to plan and compete within this popular and oversubscribed program.

Nearly one-third of the Senate endorsed Senator Patty Murray’s (D-WA) amendment to authorize TIGER and provide $500 million per year in contract authority via the transportation fund. Unfortunately, along with the Wicker-Booker amendment, this important provision was not given an open and fair hearing on the floor.

6) TIFIA loans can fund TOD, but under a dramatically scaled back program

One of Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) signature achievements in MAP-21 was an expansion of the TIFIA loan program from nearly $125 million up to $1 billion in annual financing authority. This move greatly expanded an innovative program of low-cost federal financing that doesn’t have to be repaid immediately, allowing the financial benefits of a project to accrue before payments are due. While two good changes were made in the DRIVE Act — making transit-oriented development (TOD) an eligible expenditure and making it easier for local projects, TOD and ITS to access this program by lowering the total project cost threshold lowered from $50 million to $10 million — the program’s funding was scaled back significantly, from $1 billion to $300 million annually.

7) Transit wins additional funds, but projects with private involvement can ‘skip the line’

Overall, public transportation was spared any cuts and in fact received a larger portion of overall authorized funding. As initially introduced by Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY), the DRIVE Act provided transit with 24 percent of the bill’s funding, but the new money used to fill the gap in the transportation fund was directed almost entirely to the highway program. As a result, the mass transit account was set to end the third year of the bill (FY2018) with a negative balance of $180 million. This was fixed on the Senate floor with help from Sen. Durbin (D-IL) and others, and in the end transit received a nearly 25 increase in funding over the six years of the authorization.

One provision in the transit title of the DRIVE Act generating controversy is the ability for projects with any private sector involvement in design, construction, operation, or maintenance of transit projects to jump to the front of the line for the already oversubscribed transit New Starts Program.

8) Active transportation funding survives intact

While the bill represents a missed opportunity for local communities on the whole, the bill slightly increases funding for the popular Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to $850 million, but it caps the growth there over the life of the bill. Unlike other programs, this means TAP will not be able to grow with inflation over the life of the six-year authorization.

On a positive note, communities that use TAP to help make biking or walking safer and more convenient will receive 100 percent of the program’s funds, meaning all $850 million will be available to communities. States formerly controlled half of the program’s funds — but no longer.

9) Limited progress to improve accountability through performance measures

The DRIVE Act takes one small step to build on project selection and performance management, a key reform of MAP-21. The DRIVE Act provides MPOs and states support in developing their performance measure programs by requiring USDOT to develop datasets and data analysis tools. This includes addressing data gaps for trip origin and destination, trip time and travel mode.

While USDOT has yet to complete their assignment to establish rules for the performance measures contained in MAP-21, there were steps available to the Senate such as including measures such as connectivity and access to jobs or improving project selection processes to open up the “black box” and provide greater transparency and understanding for why one project receives funds over another. None of these positive ideas were included in the DRIVE Act that passed the Senate.

10) Positive advances for next-generation transportation research

At a time when transformative changes in technology are beginning to reshape the transportation landscape, providing an outcome-based 21st century transportation research program is needed now more than ever. Fortunately, this is an area that the DRIVE Act did well. First, the bill establishes competitive funding for local governments and MPOs, among others, to deploy and test innovative research. This is important, since MAP-21 provided limited dollars outside of formula funds to test and deploy the next generation of transportation innovations. Second, the bill would require USDOT to study “shared use mobility” (car-sharing, bike-sharing, ride-sharing, etc.) and other innovative concepts, and provide local and regional leaders best practices and better understanding of the shared use transportation sector. This is important since we need to provide our leaders the understanding of this new transportation sector so that they can adequately plan and provide for its growth.

 

The last thing you need to know is that the work is far from over. While the Senate passed this long-term bill, both chambers also passed short-term extensions to MAP-21, setting up October 29th as the next deadline to agree on a multi-year transportation bill. Will the House pass the Senate’s bill? Will they draft a bill of their own? Will they fail to do anything and move to another short-term extension in October? Stay tuned.

US Senate Transportation Authorization – T4A Update

The US Senate continues to debate the federal surface transportation bill this week, with a series of votes taken last night by the full Senate. Individual senators filed over 200 amendments and T4America continues to track the latest developments on those amendments. We have compiled a brief update on where things stand and provide information on three amendments that we know would spur innovation, access and local control. 

**It is rumored that another manager’s amendment package will be offered in the near future. T4A will update this information as needed.

Transportation Funding Timeline Update: Transportation funding expires this Friday and the House announced this morning that they intend to pass a 3-month extension to match the Senate’s; setting up a new October 29 transportation funding deadline.

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) introduced what is expected to be the first of potentially two or more manager’s amendment packages. Manager’s packages serve as legislative vehicles to modify a piece of legislation in committee or on the floor, wholesale. This first manager’s package makes a number of changes, including maintaining the historic 80/20 highway and transit funding split; increases funding for the FTA High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program by $100 million (paid for by cutting TIFIA and the Assistance for Major Projects by $50 million each) and requires 50% of the off-system bridge set-aside funding in the STP program to be used on bridges that are not on the federal-aid highway system.

Last Sunday, the Senate dispatched a couple of non-germane amendments, but voted to allow Senators to vote on whether or not to tie the Ex-Im Bank authorization to the highway authorization. Late last night, the Senate voted and approved that plan (64-39).

Under this new modified manager’s package, T4A believes that it is unlikely that few if any of the 200+ plus amendments filed by Senators will be considered or voted on. However, we do anticipate the introduction of a third manager’s amendment which will reflect additional changes. T4A continues to work to increase local control, innovation and access to jobs and opportunity through three primary amendments. They include the following:

  1. Wicker-Booker STP local control amendment (corresponding fact sheet by USCM on changes to metro level funding)
  2. Murray TIGER authorization amendment
  3. Donnelly Job Access planning amendment (search for S. Amdt 2434, 2435 and 2436; this one is messy, our apologies)

Update: 5 Issues to Watch (for more information, please refer to T4A’s Member post on 7/23/15):

Pay-fors – Since the last post on 7/23/15, a number of items have shifted. A few provisions, considered poison pills, were removed, including the $2.3 billion that came from denying those with felony warrants social security benefits and $1.7 billion that came from rescinding unused funds for TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund. These rescissions leave the authorization with $43.7 billion, all of which are generated outside of the traditional transportation-user fee system. The measure would provide enough additional HTF revenues to provide the first three years of highway and transit investment, but Congress would be required to raise additional resources before October 2018 to be able to fund the final three years of the DRIVE Act’s authorized spending.

Transit funding – Changes in the manager’s package increased the levels of transit funding to be 24% of the authorized levels overall and 24% of any new funding generated annually.

Freight –The DRIVE Act creates a robust freight planning process that directs states to examine efficient goods movement and identify projects needed to improve multimodal freight movement. However, despite instituting a multi-modal freight planning process, the new National Highway Freight Program would require 90% of the funding go to highway-only projects rather than to multimodal projects using a performance-based system. What impact will this have?

Take, for example, the non-highway freight needs in the State of California. Ten percent of California’s funding would be only $9.3 million in 2016, growing to $23 million in 2021. Comparitively, one multimodal project at the Port of Long Beach in California to remove a railroad bottleneck and build more on-dock rail capacity cost the Port $84 million. T4A views this policy as a missed opportunity and not consistent with T4A’s freight policy.

Overall, due to removal of the TARP Hardest Hit Fund, the bill’s overall investment levels needed to be reduced. Under the first manager’s package, the freight program was set to receive $1.5 billion in FY2016 growing to $2 billion in FY2018. The program would now receive $991.5 million in FY2016 and increase to 1.9 billion in Fy2018.

Passenger Rail – No changes to note from the last update on 7/23/15.

Assistance for Major Projects (AMP) – Funding decreased by $50 million per year to increase funds for FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program. AMP would now be authorized at $250 million in FY16 and rise to $400 million in FY2021.

*NEW* TIFIA – The initial manager’s package introduced early last week would cut TIFIA funding from $1 billion to $500 million per year. Removing the TARP Hardest Hit Fund and other payfors required additional cuts, which senate authorizers took out of the TIFIA program. Those cuts, plus the increase to the FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair program, result in an overall authorized funding level for TIFIA at just $300 million per year over the life of the bill.

Senate Passes Cloture; 5 Things We’re Watching

***Please note, at 10:00am T4A received McConnell’s substitute amendment, which means that a number of these items may have changed. We’ll keep you updated as it proceeds.**

Last night, the US Senate passed a procedural vote called cloture. Like a starting pistol in a race, this means that they can now start debating, amending and eventually pass a federal surface transportation bill out of the Senate. While many things can, and will, happen over the next few days, there are a number of topics that Transportation for America is watching.

Want to know how your Senator voted on cloture? Click HERE.

1.Payfors – DC parlance for real and imaginary ways to pay for this bill.

At this time, there appears to be a wide-ranging list of payfors that run as small as $172 million up to $16 billion. Some of these include items like such as rescinding unused TARP funds or extending fees for TSA. There do not seem to be many that keep the traditional tie between users of the system and payments into the system.

The mass transit account appears to be running out of funding well before the highway trust fund. Initial T4A analysis seems to indicate that the legislation pulls in all 10 years of the proposed funding to pay for 3 years of the highway trust fund and 1.5 years of the mass transit account.

APTA transit run

APTA transit funding table in current Senate transportation legislation

The legislation also appears to sell 101 million barrels out of the 693.7 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between 2018 and 2025 to bring in $9B over 10 years. Critics of this funding scheme assert that we are selling the oil when prices are at record lows, making it a foolish idea. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) is reportedly one of those critics.

Originally, this legislation withheld Social Security payments from recipients that are subjects of a felony arrest warrant and for whom the state has given notice that they intend to pursue the warrant, raising $2.3 billion over 10 years. T4A has heard that Senate negotiators have removed this provision due to the advocacy of a number of social equity and civil rights groups.

2. Transit
T4A and the larger transportation community have several concerns about this title, the main ones are:

banking transit

US Banking Democrats chart on modal share under currently proposed Senate legislation

First, the DRIVE Act fails to provide public transportation with 20% of the new revenue dedicated to growth, which is a historical guarantee dating back to President Reagan’s agreement in 1982. Public transportation receives only 6% of the revenue derived from the future funding growth (see Senate Banking Democrats chart). U.S. DOT estimates that the Mass Transit Account ends the third year of the bill (FY 2018) with a negative balance of $180 million. Senator Boxer is reportedly negotiating a fix with Senate Republicans that will increase that percentage.

Second, projects with private funds get to “skip the line” for federal money, providing a major incentive for privatized service. The existence of a new expedited process could entice cities to pursue transit privatization on a large scale by using P3s to operate transit service. The labor community has expressed strong opposition and may oppose the entire bill if this provision isn’t removed.

Third, this legislation forces the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to wait 6 months before increasing oversight of at-risk projects. Sec. 21015 requires the FTA to wait for a project to fail 2 consecutive quarterly reviews before providing more oversight to a project that is going over budget or falling behind schedule.

3. The Freight program

This legislation includes all modes of freight, including pipelines for the first time. It also requires the establishment of a new multi-modal freight network within 1 year of enactment, the establishment of which appears to be similar to the creation of the existing freight network (as well as a re designation of the existing highway freight network). It does, however, define economic competitiveness by the amount of traffic moved and not economic outcomes and will fund projects that reduce congestion, improve reliability, boost productivity, improve safety or state of good repair, use advanced technology or protect the environment on the national highway freight network.

You’ll recall that T4A sent out an action alert to keep the TIGER program multimodal and not let the US Senate Commerce Committee use it for freight-exclusive purposes. We’re happy to report that effort was successful, though the TIGER program is still not authorized or funded in the transportation bill.

4. Passenger Rail
This legislation authorizes passenger rail funding for the first time ever in a federal surface transportation reauthorization. The legislation calls for $1.44B in 2016 and growing to $1.9B in 2019. It maintains a national system and provides for clear cost accounting among the 4 business lines of Amtrak of the corridor, state-supported and long-distance trains. Provides for up to 6 new passenger rail routes on a competitive basis and for the first time makes operational costs eligible for grants.

5. AMP – Assistance for Major Projects
This is a new project for highway or transit projects that cost at least $350M or 25% percent of state highway apportionment (10% in a rural state). Applications should be reviewed based on consistency with federal goals, improvement to the performance of the system, is consistent with the statewide plan, can’t be completed without federal help and will achieve one or more of the following:

  • generate national economic benefits outweigh cost,
  • reduce congestion,
  • improve the reliability of movement of people and freight, or
  • improve safety

Grants under AMP must be at least $50M, with a rural guarantee of 20%. Eligible applicants for AMP include states, local governments (or group of locals), tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, public authorities with transportation function and federal land management agencies. It is not yet clear if this language is specific enough to include MPOs.

Amendments to be offered: T4A staff is monitoring a number of potential amendments. One of which (offered by Senators Wicker (R-MS) and Booker (D-NJ)) would increase the ability of communities to fund projects through the Surface Transportation Program. We strongly urge you to call your Senator and tell them to co-sponsor that amendment.

ICYMI: T4A and SGA Host Federal Policy Webinar; Materials Inside

Yesterday, Smart Growth America and Transportation for America hosted a webinar to review congressional action on the federal surface transportation authorization. If you were able to attend, you will recall that we mentioned how the US Senate is poised to consider the authorization before the full Senate next Tuesday. That continues to be the current timeframe for Senate consideration.

webinar image

Access the webinar powerpoint here.

As a T4A member, you can access the webinar anytime through this page.

Two action items stemming from that conversation include:

  • It is highly likely that T4A will be issuing a number of action alerts next week. While we don’t have legislative language on a number of potential amendments, we anticipate movement on issues of local control, freight, TAP, transit funding and TIGER. Member support would be greatly appreciated.
  • The National Complete Streets Coalition is requesting support to tell FHWA to make more inclusive streets that are designed to be more livable. You can register your comments here: bit.ly/NHSdesign (this weblink is case-sensitive).

What we’re watching: Senate Commerce Committee to mark up six-year transportation bill today

[This blog post is cross-posted from Smart Growth America. – Ed.]

Later today (Wednesday) the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is scheduled to mark up the Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act of 2015 (S. 1732), a proposed six-year transportation reauthorization. As we’ve mentioned here before, the federal transportation bill has huge implications for development across the country. Here’s what we’ll be looking for during today’s proceedings.

The bill currently includes legislation that supports and expands opportunities for transit-oriented development (TOD). The bipartisan Railroad Reform, Enhancement, and Efficiency Act (S. 1626) would expand the capabilities of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Act, a $30 billion loan program to provide needed financing for transit-oriented development projects and infrastructure near passenger rail stations. This provision also includes provisions to improve rail safety and enhance existing rail infrastructure. These provisions are a big deal: previous transportation bills have not included a rail title, and it’s noteworthy that this bill would include both rail and surface transportation. We’re looking for S. 1626 to remain included in the final bill.

In addition, an amendment to the bill would include components of the Safe Streets Act, originally introduced in the Senate in 2014. The provision would require states and metropolitan planning organizations to adopt Complete Streets policies for federally funded projects. We’re looking for the Safe Streets amendment to be adopted in the final bill.

Finally, the bill would dramatically alter the U.S. Department of Transportation’s highly successful Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants. As written, the bill would refocus TIGER funding towards a new multimodal grant program exclusive to freight infrastructure. Hundreds of communities have used TIGER grants to catalyze local transportation investments and safety improvements. We’re looking to see the TIGER program retain its competitive, multimodal mission in the final bill.

Help defend the TIGER program: Send a message to your Senator TODAY >>

Ultimately the Senate Commerce Committee’s bill will be combined with bills from the Environment and Public Works and Banking committees. The final resolution could come to the floor for consideration by the full Senate as early as this week. The House of Representatives is also currently considering its strategy for transportation. No word on when the two chambers will come together on a final resolution.

Join us on Thursday for an inside look at transportation reauthorization in Congress

The current federal transportation bill will expire on July 31, 2015, with the nation’s transportation fund reaching insolvency near the same time. Join us Thursday for a public conversation about what’s likely to happen in Washington and what it all means for your community. 

In the coming weeks Congress will likely be negotiating an extension to MAP-21 before its July 31 expiration while also debating the policies in a long-term transportation bill — a process that has already started. How will the decisions made in Congress and the current political landscape impact local transportation projects, Complete Streets, and transit-oriented development?

Join Smart Growth America and Transportation for America for a special open conversation about what’s happening right now in transportation policy this Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 4:00 PM EDT.

You can register for the event here.

Hear from Joe McAndrew, Policy Director at Transportation for America; Christopher Coes, Director of LOCUS; and Stefanie Seskin, Deputy Director of the National Complete Streets Coalition. Each speaker will focus on a different aspect of the current negotiations.

The federal transportation bill will have huge implications for development across the country. Join us on Thursday to learn more about where Congress currently stands and what you can do to help shape the debate.

18-days-until-trust-fund-runs-out

Cities and towns could lose one of their best options for funding smart local projects

The Senate Commerce Committee is marking up a version of a long-term transportation funding bill Wednesday morning with no authorization for the popular TIGER program, thus limiting the money available to local communities.

Let me tell you a short story.

In central Illinois, there’s a classic medium-sized American town that desperately wanted to revitalize their downtown, fan the flames of the community’s civic pride, and provide a new lynchpin to encourage development in a part of town that had been neglected for far too long.

The elected leaders, business leaders and citizens in Normal, Illinois had an ambitious vision for their city’s core to become a powerful asset; helping them compete and prosper economically and creating a new framework for creating value for decades to come.

save-tiger-featuredSince 2009, the federal TIGER program has made projects like Normal’s downtown transportation hub and civic centerpiece a reality, directing a relatively tiny $4 billion into smart, ready-to-go homegrown transportation projects that bring a high return on investment.

Unfortunately, in the just-released proposal for a new long-term transportation bill, the Senate Commerce Committee has decided to entirely scrap the oversubscribed and woefully underfunded TIGER program that awards competitive, merit-based grants.

Can you send a message right now to your Senators and urge them to preserve TIGER? 

The Senate Commerce Committee is marking up the bill on Wednesday morning (7/15), so there’s not a moment to lose!

The committee is creating a very smart competitive multimodal grant program explicitly for freight projects, but that shouldn’t happen at the expense of TIGER. We need more transportation dollars, not fewer, awarded competitively on the merits to the best projects.

When we choose projects on the merits, we can get a greater bang for the buck. In Normal, where the new transportation hub opened in 2012, a total public investment of $80 million has catalyzed $165 million in private development surrounding the station, with another $40-50 million in the works.

These TIGER grants have been rewarding communities all across the country that are thinking outside the box to cut congestion, improve safety, promote economic development, or improve access to jobs and opportunities through smarter transportation investments.

It’s time to take a stand for TIGER. Can you send a message today?

Exclusive Member Summary – 6/18/15 Senate Finance Highway Funding Hearing

June 18, 2015 — US Senate Finance Committee — “Dead End, No Turn Around, Danger Ahead: Challenges to the Future of Highway Funding”

Witnesses: 

Dr. Joseph Kile – Assisant Director for Microeconomic Studies Division, Congressional Budget Office

The Honorable Ray LaHood – Senior Policy Advisor, DLA Piper

Mr. Stephen Moore – Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

At this hearing, Chairman Hatch (R-UT) looked to explore every possible option to address the long-term fiscal challenges of the Highway Trust Fund. However, at the hearing he mentioned that he does not see any large-scale gas tax increase as politically possible. That said, Hatch pressed the need remove the “highway cliff” by finding funding to do a multi-year authorization.

Senator Carper (D-DE) called upon Senator Hatch to ensure no options like the gas tax are taken off the table, and referred to T4A analysis that showed state legislators who vote for a gas tax increase were not punished. Carper mentioned that at a minimum we should be able to index the gasoline and diesel tax and then come up with other creative sources to fund infrastructure.

Witness Stephen Moore with Heritage Foundation floated the idea of devolution, but the proposal was very unpopular for a majority of committee members and was shot down by former Secretary Ray LaHood as an irresponsible notion. Senators Thune (R-SD), Heller (R-NV) and Menendez (D-NJ) all voiced devolving the program. Transit came under attack for receiving gas tax dollars, but Senator Thune mentioned kicking transit out of the program is a political non-starter after it failed in the House during debate for MAP-21, and Senator Menendez and former Secretary Ray LaHood both stood up strongly for the need for more robust transit investment, not less.

Senator Thune (R-SD) mentioned that we should be treating general fund transfers as adding debt to an already debt-burdened country, since those funds ultimately do account for part of the deficit. He said it is time we stop the easy solution of general fund transfers and find a way pay for it. Senator Hatch agreed that long-term action is absolutely needed, and mentioned it will be difficult, but that the Committee will be working to look at all the different options to come up with a solution that stops the country from kicking the can down the road.

House takes first step in process to keep the nation’s transportation fund solvent

For the first time since 2012, the House of Representatives held a hearing focused on funding the nation’s transportation system. Today’s hearing focused on the elephant in the room: how to adequately fund a transportation bill that’s longer than just a few months. While it’s a relief to see the funding issue finally getting airtime in the House, keeping the nation’s transportation fund solvent is only half of the problem — we also need to update the broken federal program that isn’t meeting our country’s needs.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee tasked with finding the money to pay for a transportation bill, took the most obvious funding solution off the table — raising the federal gasoline excise tax — right at the start of the hearing as the gallery was still getting comfortable in their seats, deflating some members of the committee who were eager to at least discuss this option.

“We are not raising gas taxes‚ plain and simple,” he said, while adding later that the House “does need to find a real solution, a permanent solution. We are all ears.” Chairman Ryan suggested that repatriation of overseas profits (a one-time, non-transportation user fee fix) or giving states more authority could be possible solutions, but a gas tax increase is off the table.

Before the hearing, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) held a press conference featuring a coalition of groups who support his bill to raise new revenue in the House by phasing in a 15-cent increase in the gas tax. Civil engineers, general contractors, roadbuilders, public transportation operators and T4America director James Corless spoke at the press conference to support Rep. Blumenauer’s case that Congress’ inaction is negatively impacting our nation’s economy and action is long overdue.

James corless blumenauer
T4America director James Corless speaking at this morning’s press conference

Rep. Blumenauer carried his momentum from the morning press conference into the hearing an hour later.

“We’re not keeping up our end of the bargain for the 50 percent of capital spending on big projects that comes from the federal government. We haven’t made any meaningful adjustment since 1993 to the gas tax, relying on short-term fixes, gimmicks – and no matter how you slice it, adding to the deficit,” Rep. Blumenauer said in his prepared remarks.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (R-TX) concurred. “What is missing from our transportation policy is money – revenue. We cannot build these highways with fairy dust,” Rep. Doggett (R-TX) said.

Rep. Renacci (R-OH), who has put forward a separate plan to index the gas tax to inflation and set up a mechanism to provide long-term transportation funding, noted that “short-term fixes cost money in delay and uncertainty.” He shared a story about meeting with constituents, including some tea party members, on transportation issues. He said that they told him, “‘Quit going to the general fund and taking dollars…what you’re doing is passing it onto our children and grandchildren. What I’d be willing to do is pay a user fee as long as I get my roads and bridges fixed.’ We have to come up with a long-term solution, we can’t continue to go down this path,” he said.

As Rep. Bob Dold (R-IL) from the Chicago area noted on the topic of buying new railcars for the CTA and Metra, “Do we buy them one at a time or ten at a time? I can get a far better deal if I buy them ten at a time,” he said. When agencies can’t reliably put together a multi-year budget because they have no idea what to expect from the federal government, projects can begin to cost more than they should.

Following on the heels of today’s Ways & Means hearing, the Senate Finance Committee is holding a hearing of its own tomorrow on transportation funding.

We can hope that the newfound willingness to discuss the challenging revenue question will lead members of Congress to build consensus around a funding proposal suitable for the nation’s need. However, simply raising new funding to pour into a broken system isn’t going to get us where we need to go either — we need to fix the broken system and update it with the kinds of policies that ensure every dollar invested by taxpayers provides the greatest benefits for the economy and our communities. It’s not enough to simply raise money and spend it on the same processes that created the crisis we find ourselves in today. America can do better, and it’s important that the decisionmakers understand this fact.

On that policy question, eyes are quickly turning to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, which is responsible for the highway title — the largest portion of the bill. They are planning to release and mark up their successor to MAP-21, a six-year bill, next Wednesday, June 24th.

We are counting on the Senate EPW Committee to release a bill that can maintain our current system, complete the transportation network, incentivize the strategic investments that can provide access to opportunity for all Americans and best improve connections within the cities and towns that drive our economy.

Continuing and improving a nascent process to measure the performance of our transportation investments would allow us to better ensure that our limited resources bring the best return. And a forward-looking plan to direct more of that money down to where it’s needed most would be a great companion to any plan to shore up the nation’s transportation funding.

We’re now looking to the Senate to make progress on finding a long-term funding solution, but also to make the policy changes we so urgently need to ensure those dollars are well spent.

 

US House Passes Transportation-HUD Appropriations on Razor-Thin Margin; 216-210

Late last night, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass their FY2016 Transportation-HUD with just 6 votes separating the bill from defeat. Just 3 Democrats voted for the bill’s passage — Rep. Ashford (D-NE), Rep. Cuellar (D-TX), and Rep. Graham (D-FL) — and 31 Republicans voted in opposition. The list of Republicans voting in opposition included centrists such as Rep. Dold (R-IL), Rep. King (R-NY), and Rep. Meehan (R-PA) and more conservative representatives such as Rep. Amash (R-MI), Ken McClintock (R-CO), and Rep. Massie (R-KY).  While the news is bad for TIGER, Amtrak and New Starts transit capital programs — which all received heavy cuts — we do not expect this bill in its current state to become law any time soon.

This final vote count is a sign of things to come.

The U.S. House and Senate Republicans are sticking to sequestration-level discretionary funding amounts for all of their FY2016 spending bills, established in the Budget Control Act of 2011. These spending caps limit funding for the regular appropriation bills in FY2016 to $1.016 trillion, a funding increase of just 0.29% over last year. We expect the House to continue to face uphill challenges in passing their bills and over in the Senate, with near, if not all-out opposition, from the Democrats expected for all 12 annual spending bills.

This issue will not likely resolve itself until the fall. Just yesterday, Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) rejected a call from Senate Democrats to hold a “budget summit” this month to resolve the differences between the two parties on top-line annual appropriations levels. Until this larger issue is resolved, we don’t expect the House Transportation-HUD bill that narrowly passed last night to become law any time soon.

Amendments that were considered last night prior to the bills passage include:

Rep. Denham (R-CA) – An amendment to prohibit funds from bill to be used for high-speed rail in California or for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. A similar amendment passed last year in the House by a vote of 227-186, but this amendment and others to restrict funding to the California high-speed rail project were not included in the final FY2015 transportation spending bill due to lack of support in the Senate

AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE

Rep. Bass (D-CA) – An amendment to make it easier for state and local transportation agencies to use local hire criteria for FTA procurement selection processes. A similar amendment was included in the final FY2015 transportation spending bill and USDOT is currently implementing this through a one-year pilot. Read our take on that original provision from earlier this year.

AMENDMENT ADOPTED BY VOICE VOTE

Rep Emmer (R-MN) – An amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being used to carry out projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian access on any FTA New Start (transit) projects.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 212-214 (Zero Democrats voted for the amendment — see roll call vote here)

Rep Meehan (R-PA) – An amendment to prohibit Amtrak from spending capital funds on projects other than the Northeast Corridor until Amtrak spends an amount equal to this year’s Northeast Corridor profits on Northeast Corridor capital construction. Amtrak’s profits from that line in FY2015 were $290 million.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 199-227 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Posey #1 (R-FL) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to take any actions related to financing a new passenger rail project that runs from Orlando to Miami through Indian River County, Florida. This amendment and Rep. Posey’s other two below were targeted at stopping and/or stalling the development of the private Florida East Coast Railway high-speed rail project.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 163-260 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Posey #2 (R-FL) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to authorize exempt facility bonds to finance passenger rail projects that are not reasonably expected to attain a maximum speed in excess of 150 mph.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 148-275 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Posey #3 (R-FL) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to make a loan in an amount that exceeds $600 million under the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 134-287 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Sessions #1 (R-TX) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used by Amtrak to support the route with the highest loss, measured by contributions/(loss) per rider (would eliminate the “Sunset Limited” line from New Orleans to Los Angeles). Rep. Sessions has in the past made amendments similar to this and the following amendment.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 205-218 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Sessions #2 (R-TX) – An amendment to prohibit funds being used by Amtrak to operate any route whose operating costs exceed two times its revenues based on the National Railroad Passenger Corporation FY2014-2018 Five Year Plan from April 2014, targeting nearly all long-distance routes.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 186-237 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Blackburn (R-TN) – An amendment to reduce the overall appropriations for the Transportation-HUD bill by 1%.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 163-259 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Gosar (R-AZ) – An amendment to prohibit funds from being used to implement or enforce the rule entitled “Hazardous Materials for High-Hazard Flammable Trains”.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 136-286 (see roll call vote here)

Rep Lee (D-CA) – An amendment to strike provisions included in the spending bill that would prohibit USDOT from allowing flights or cruise ships to travel to Cuba.

AMENDMENT REJECTED BY VOTE 176-247 (see roll call vote here)

UPDATE: The House is voting to slash transportation programs local communities are counting on

This evening, the House of Representatives is expected to begin debate and vote on their annual transportation funding bill. As it stands, the bill will make painful cuts to several important transportation programs that local communities depend on. With debate beginning Wednesday at 7 p.m. and continuing through the night, it’s crucial that we weigh in as soon as possible. 

Updated 2:15 p.m 6/4/15: The House delayed the final vote on the bill until Tuesday, June 9th. So keep those messages coming! Share the news with your friends and if you have already sent a letter, click through to the form again and you can find your rep’s phone number for making a quick call.

Updated 10:52 a.m 6/4/15: Debate on the bill continued well into the wee hours of Wednesday night into Thursday morning, and the House is expected to vote on the bill by noon (eastern time) on Thursday.

Can you send a message to your representative today in advance of this crucial vote?

The programs targeted by the House for cuts are precisely the ones that cities, towns and metro regions of all sizes throughout the country are depending on to help them stay economically competitive and bring their ambitious transportation plans to fruition.

Specifically, this bill would:

  • Cut $200 million for all new transit construction. This comes at a time when public transportation ridership is booming and cities of all sizes are looking to invest in new bus, rail transit, and bikeshare projects to help them stay economically competitive. This program is what Indianapolis is currently using to kick-start their ambitious bus rapid transit network, and scores of other communities are hoping to do the same.
  • Slash the TIGER competitive grant program by 80 percent from last year’s level down to just $100 million. We’re now six rounds into the popular TIGER program, and it’s clearly inadequate to fulfill the huge demand throughout the country. The program has funded innovative projects in communities of all sizes in all 50 states — and in districts both red and blue.
  • Cut Amtrak’s budget by $250 million just a few weeks after the tragic Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia, and at a time when ridership has never been higher.

This bill moves to the House floor this evening and will be debated well into the night. The final vote is most likely to come sometime tomorrow, so don’t stop calling and sending messages before the end of the day Thursday. (See updates on timing above.) 

So send a message to your representative as soon as you can today. And after you do, if you want to make an even bigger impact, pick up the phone, give them a call and urge them not to cut funding for New and Small Starts, TIGER grants and passenger rail.

House proposes cuts to TIGER and transit construction, stable funding for other programs for fiscal 2016

The House Appropriations Committee introduced a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (T-HUD) bill for fiscal 2016 that, as in years past, features heavy cuts to TIGER, New Starts and Amtrak.

The bill, approved by the T-HUD subcommittee and headed back to the full Appropriations Committee for markup and a vote, maintains funding rates for federal highway and mass transit formula dollars, $40.3 billion and $8.6 billion respectively. Of course, these funding levels assume that Congress is going to act to find enough money to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent past this June or July, and also move to either reauthorize or extend MAP-21 after its May 31st expiration. Without either action, there won’t be any money for transportation past that deadline, much less for the entire next fiscal year.

Meanwhile, other key programs are facing heavy cuts.

TIGER: The overwhelmingly popular TIGER program would shrink from $500 million to $100 million. In addition, the size of grants would be far smaller, within a range of $2-15 million, down from last year’s range of $10-200 million. This year’s T-HUD also reduces the share that the federal government will cover for TIGER projects, from 60 percent to 50 percent, requiring more local or state money to be brought to the table.

The silver lining in all this is that the House did not repeat last year’s attempt to limit eligibility to only road and port projects, a move that would have left out the wide range of multimodal projects that have benefited the most from this innovative program.

New Starts & Small Starts: These programs that fund new rail, rapid bus and streetcar construction would receive $1.92 billion in funding, down from last year’s $2.12 billion in the final budget. The new bill would also reduce the federal government’s share of New Starts projects from 60 percent to 50 percent.

Amtrak: Amtrak would have a budget of $1.1 billion. The bill actually adds $39 million to the rail service’s operational costs, but cuts $290 million from its capital budget.

The Senate has yet to release its own budget, but for the last few years, the Senate has prioritized funding for many of these important programs. However, with the change in leadership in the Senate in this Congress, it’s unclear if things could play out similarly this year compared to years past.

Members can read our full summary memo on the THUD bill below.

[member_content] Members, you can read our full members-only THUD summary here. (pdf)

And, have you been to the new portal for all members-only content? https://t4america.org/members [/member_content]

As transit becomes ‘must-have economic development tool,’ will Congress help?

An excellent piece in the Washington Post this morning caught up to the topic we have been raising here for some time: Good transit service and walkable locations with nearby places to live, eat and shop are essential for economic development in today’s world. Which makes us wonder: Is Congress listening?

Recalling that Marriott’s chief executive recently expressed a desire to locate near Metro rail, reporters Katherine Shaver and Bill Turque wrote:

Marriott’s announcement is the latest sign that mass transit, once viewed as a prescription for traffic congestion, is now considered a must-have economic development tool to attract millennials — the country’s largest living generation — along with their employers, and the taxes that both contribute to local governments. Adding to the demand is the country’s second-largest demographic group: empty-nest baby boomers seeking to downsize in the suburbs and drive less as they grow older.

As regular readers are well aware, Congress must find money to renew the federal transportation program this year, ostensibly by May 31 (though an extension of the law itself is all but inevitable). In doing so, lawmakers can either help or hurt communities, like those discussed in the story, that are lining up for very limited dollars for transit, TIGER and the like — money that can help them prepare their communities for economic success.

They are doing so in large part because they are continually hearing messages like this one from Stephen P. Joyce, Choice Hotels’ chief executive, quoted in the Post:

If you’re a suburban employer and you want to be relevant to people who want to live in urban locations, you’ve got to think mass transit,” Joyce said. “I can’t compete unless they can get to us without driving.

Henry Bernstein, a longtime economic development official who is now an executive in a commercial real estate firm in Rockville, MD, explains why: “This generation wants more things at their fingertips, rather than having to jump in a car to get to the mall or go eat. I truly believe any community that doesn’t have these things will fail.”

The Post story comes the same month that State Farm officials announced they would consolidate employees in three cities at regional hubs on sites with rail transit. “We’re designing these workplaces to be the future of State Farm,” chief operating officer Michael Tipsord said. “We’re creating a live-work-play environment that will give employees easy access to their work from the neighboring communities.”

Among the possible solutions within the federal program is the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, introduced in both the House and Senate this month by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. It would give a major boost by allowing local communities more access to federal dollars flowing to their state, but there is so much more that could be done with more robust transit funding and more flexible use of existing dollars.

Here’s hoping that Congress is paying attention, and that the next federal program will provide local communities more access to the funds they need to meet the needs of today’s economy.

15 issues to watch in ’15, Part II: Places

It’s a challenge to craft a list of only five states, regions and cities that have important or notable things happening this year. Whether states attempting to raise transportation revenue this year, states changing key policies and continuing to innovate how they choose or build transportation projects, or local communities going to voters to raise money for new projects, there’s no shortage of places worth watching this year. Here are five that rose to the top, but tell us what you think we missed, in your area or elsewhere.

Ed: As the year began, we thought it would be fun to identify 15 people, places and trends worth keeping an eye on the next 12 months. We’re rolling out this list in three posts — read our first post on five policy issues worth watching on Capitol Hill in 2015.

START stacked T4 feature

Places

1. Minnesota

If we released a list this time last year, Minnesota might have appeared on that one as well. Though a broad coalition (Move MN) formed to rally support from the public and lawmakers for raising transportation revenues, the DFL majority in both chambers did not pass a transportation funding package in 2014. DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, running for reelection, seemed hesitant to support raising any taxes, though he routinely acknowledged that Minnesota needed to invest in their aging transportation network. Late in the election, he introduced his 2015 legislative plan to raise revenue: a new 6.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline, in addition to a variety of other fee increases.

Gov. Dayton won re-election, but the Minnesota House flipped back to a GOP majority, providing a new challenge for his plan in the legislature. Though Move MN built an impressively broad coalition, they weren’t able to secure support from the statewide chamber and a few other key groups that represent Minnesota businesses. Gov. Dayton has already been lobbying those groups in 2015 to support his plan that would raise over $6 billion over the next decade.

Republicans in control of the House have issued their plan that would raise no new taxes but allocate $750 million over the next four years via various internal accounting maneuvers. (Great comparison of the two plans here.) With two legislative chambers split between the parties but a growing public call for something to be done to invest infrastructure, Minnesota will be a critical battleground to watch this year. If Congress fails to find a funding solution to keep the nation’s trust fund from going bankrupt this Spring, Minnesota — and states facing a shortfall — could be hit by a double whammy if they’re not prepared to act on their own.

2. Utah

While there had been some noise over the last year in Utah about the need to raise new transportation revenue, there was no concrete legislation introduced or seriously discussed in 2014. In late 2014, Governor Herbert suggested he was open to raising the gas tax in 2015, which was “a proposition [speaker-elect Greg] Hughes doesn’t see getting very far” in the upcoming legislative session, according to the Deseret News. At the time, Rep. Hughes did suggest that “House Republicans do want to look what he sees as an outdated formula for calculating the state’s 24.5-cent per gallon gas tax.” But just a few weeks ago, news broke that a deal could be closer than previously thought. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune last week broke the news that the state’s GOP caucus endorsed the idea of raising transportation taxes, but also overhauling the funding system — which could mean a revenue source that will rise with inflation.

“We have talked about concepts now for two years,” House Transportation Committee Chairman Johnny Anderson, R-Taylorsville, told a forum of the Utah Highway Users Association. “Know that the work is about to be done” to raise tax for transportation. …Anderson said the House GOP Caucus last month endorsed not only transportation-tax hikes, but also the idea to “dump our antiquated” tax system for one that automatically keeps up with inflation and makes those now escaping gas tax contribute.

The Utah legislature is somewhat unique — their trust of the Utah DOT runs so high that they often appropriate significant general funds to transportation projects. Utah could also prove to be a significant bellwether for other GOP-controlled state legislatures to follow. Utah’s session begins January 28, so we’ll soon find out if this proposition has legs.

3. Illinois

Incoming Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner faces significant challenges, but some of his first moves have a lot of advocates hopeful about positive changes that could come in 2015. Just a few years removed from a governor going to jail and a patronage hiring scandal at state agencies, Illinois is also in one of the worst fiscal messes in the country, brought on by billions in unfunded pensions, decreased tax revenue, and repeated downgrades to the state’s credit rating.

As the Governor and the legislature collaborate on a budget and craft a new capital plan for infrastructure investment, the fiscal crisis facing the state provides an interesting opportunity for Gov. Rauner, who ran as a reformer and a prudent fiscal manager on his business bona fides. With the state billions in debt and confidence in IDOT incredibly low, overhauling the system and moving towards a new system for measuring the performance of the state’s transportation spending could be the only way to restore public trust — essential for raising any new money for transportation.

Possibly hinting at a move in this direction, Gov. Rauner appointed Randy Blankenhorn from the Chicago MPO (CMAP) to head the state DOT, an appointment which could help bring the issue of performance measures into the debate. “There’s always hyperbole and optimism when you have a changing of the guard. But I sincerely believe that we have a chance to right Illinois’ ship with Gov. Rauner and Randy Blankenhorn,” said Peter Skosey with the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and the T4 Advisory Board. As part of his transition team on transportation, Gov. Rauner also brought in MarySue Barrett from MPC, one of the leading advocates in the entire state for a performance-based transportation system.

With these pieces in place, it’s possible that discussing a way to restore credibility and create a new transparent mechanism for distributing any new transportation funds could be central in the debate in Illinois in 2015, which makes this an important state to watch.

4. Indianapolis, Indiana

It was a huge victory when the Indiana legislature and Governor Pence approved a long-sought bill in March 2014 that finally gives metro Indianapolis counties the right to vote on funding a much-expanded public transportation network, with a major emphasis on bus rapid transit. Civic, elected and business leaders had been hard at work since 2009 producing an ambitious and inspiring IndyConnect plan, “the most comprehensive transportation plan — created with the most public input — our region has ever seen,” according to Mayor Greg Ballard in the foreword to our Innovative MPO report. Now the hard part comes as they build public and political will and decide what to include on a November 2016 ballot measure that would raise revenue from changes to local income taxes — a challenging revenue mechanism to say the least.

While transit expansion has more support in the region’s core, local leaders acknowledge they have an uphill battle in some suburban counties more skeptical of the merits of transit. Mayor Ballard and the diverse group of Indy businesses (including a booming healthcare industry) supporting IndyConnect understand how important this measure is for helping Indy be economically competitive in the future. Indy likely won’t be supplanting Chicago as the big city of choice in the Midwest, but there’s a desire among local leaders for Indy to be the city that can attract young families who think Chicago is too expensive; or luring recent college grads back home to Indy. And a strong regional public transit system is lies at the very core of their economic strategy.

Though Indianapolis counties won’t vote on the transportation plan until 2016, some of the most important work will be done in 2015 as they continue their model efforts to build consensus in urban and suburban areas alike on a plan to take to the ballot.

5. Raleigh, North Carolina

After watching the Triangle region’s two other counties approve ballot measure to raise funds for a regional transit system originally envisioned by all three counties, Raleigh could finally be joining the party due to a big shakeup in their county’s Board of Commissioners in 2014.

Durham and Orange counties approved half-cent sales taxes in 2011 and 2012 respectively to fund transit operations, improved bus service and a regional light rail line. Although it contains the biggest city in the region (Raleigh), the Wake County Commissioners hadn’t allowed a question to raise funds for a regional transit system to go to the ballot. In fact, a handful of commissioners actively prevented the issue going forward, often stifling debate at times.

That could all change in 2015, as more than half of the county board was replaced last November. Four new supportive members were elected to the county board, replacing four who had consistently been on the other side of the issue, clearing the way for a potential ballot measure in Wake County.  It’s worth noting that the mayor of Raleigh, Nancy McFarlane, has long been a supporter of a regional plan for transit, and she joined with other mayors and T4America a year ago to meet with USDOT Sec. Foxx on the importance of passenger rail.

Wake County is one of the fastest growing counties in the U.S. and the county’s population is due to double by 2035. Yet this rapidly growing community with a notable high-tech, research, government and major university employment base is one of the few major metro regions that lacks a significant transit system. Just like Indianapolis, they will be crafting their plan and building consensus in 2015 as they shoot for a vote in 2016. Though the issue has support on the county board now, there will be a public debate and votes worth watching in 2015.

15 issues to watch in ’15, Part I: Capitol Hill developments

Already, 2015 feels like it could be a big year for transportation, at the federal, state and local levels alike. As the year began, we thought it would be fun to identify 15 people, places and trends that seemed to be worth keeping an eye on the next 12 months. In some years, 15 would be a stretch, but this year we had a tough time whittling the list to match the number of the year.

We will roll out the list in three posts, starting today with five issues to watch at the federal level. The next two posts will cover “places (states and cities)” and “people.” We plan to pay special attention to these 15, but we will by no means limit ourselves to them. So tell us what you think we missed, in your area or elsewhere.

START stacked T4 feature

1. The federal gas tax and Congress – will they or won’t they take it on as MAP-21 expires and we face the “fiscal cliff” in early 2015?

You won’t hear more about any single transportation-related issue this year than the erosion of the gas tax, the future of federal funding and the expiration of the current federal transportation law.

The gas tax continues to lose value through inflation, more efficient vehicles, and the ongoing trend of Americans driving less. Policy changes aside, there’s not enough money to even extend the current law (MAP-21) for a few more years. Last summer, Congress had to pull out every trick in the book just to keep the nation’s transportation funding solvent until close to the expiration of MAP-21 until May 31, when MAP-21 expires – just in time for construction season.

Suddenly, though, with gas prices plunging, some members from both parties have indicated at least a willingness to talk about a gas tax increase to make up the gap between needs and existing revenue. One thing is certain: Congress can’t extend the federal program at anything like the current level without finding money from somewhere. There are literally no other options. It’s encouraging that this Congress appears to be ready to give that conversation more attention than the last.

2. National passenger rail policy could be the first major issue up in 2015.

Even before Congress takes up how to fund a multi-year transportation bill or an extension of MAP-21 in May, members are likely to debate the reauthorization of our nation’s passenger rail policy (including funding for Amtrak). Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, has declared a high priority on adopting the measure early this year.

Last September, his committee passed a version of the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act (PRRIA) with a handful of positive changes, including stable funding for Amtrak. A key indicator to watch is whether consensus on those improvements persists when the bill is reintroduced in the new Congress, and whether action on this bill occurs in the Senate. After several years of House proposals that either made huge cuts to our country’s rail network or hearings that focused heavily on issues like privatization or the food vendors serving Amtrak, 2015 might just be the year we see a reasonable and responsible passenger rail law.

3. Implementing accountability: How will the U.S. DOT choose to measure congestion and safety?

Ok, yes, it’s a terribly wonky issue and will likely not take over the discussion around your water cooler at work, but this transition to a more performance-based system of transportation investment was one of the key reforms of MAP-21 and could represent a sea change in how funding decisions are made and our transportation system performs. This is the year when the new standards, and the requirements for meeting them, are expected to be set.

Signals have been mixed so far, though recent developments are encouraging. The first attempt at a safety standard was far too lax, and gave states and metros a potential pass on improving the safety of their transportation systems and survival rate of people on foot and bicycle. The feds heard the public protests and now propose more exacting performance to earn passing grades. The latest proposal on standards for keeping roads and bridges in reasonable condition is much better.

The real test will come this spring, when DOT officials unveil how they propose to measure improvements around the effects of roadway congestion (as well as some other measures.) Choose a method to measure congestion that only values free-flowing highway traffic at any time of day (even if the length of the trip is exceedingly long), and states could reward sprawling development patterns and longer commutes. Choose instead to consider how many people can enjoy a predictable commute to work and you’re likely to see investments in a range of cost-effective solutions. It might not seem sexy, but it is definitely one of the transportation issues that could have the greatest impact beyond 2015.

4. Will the much-loved TIGER grant program survive, and if so, in what form?

The TIGER program, designed to get funding to innovative projects that solve multiple issues but don’t fit into mode-specific funding categories, dates all the way back to the beginning of President Obama’s first days in office as part of the economic recovery package. Five rounds of grants have been handed out to date, totaling over $4 billion. The program was threatened in the last-minute budget dealmaking at the end of last Congress, but survived with $500 million for a sixth round of grants. Though funding drops by $100 million from 2014, it’s still $400 million better than what the House proposed for this year. The “cromnibus” budget compromise also dropped a House requirement to limit TIGER grants to highway, bridge and port projects. That means TIGER in 2015 will operate the same as the previous rounds, supporting innovative projects that take a multimodal approach and address needs as local communities define them, rather than Congress.

The big question for 2015 is whether the new Congress will include TIGER or something like it — a pot of money that is open to competition from local communities with innovative projects — in the next transportation law. As popular as it is — and it is extremely popular — TIGER’s future is unclear.

5. Local control and the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act.

We spent a lot of time in 2014 making the case for more transportation dollars, and control over those dollars, to be directed to the local level where a community’s leaders know their needs best and can make decisions accordingly. So it was a huge milestone when a bipartisan group of House and Senate members introduced a bill to do just that near the end of the last Congress. In a Congress where acts of bipartisanship were rare, it was encouraging to see representatives teaming up and responding directly to the pleas they’d heard from the mayors, business leaders, and citizens in their communities for more of a voice in the process of selecting and funding transportation projects in their communities. We expect to see both House and Senate bills re-introduced sometime early in the 114th Congress by Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL) and Dina Titus (D-NV), and Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Cory Booker (D-NJ), and we look forward to seeing the case for greater local control gain more momentum in 2015 and hopefully result in this provision’s incorporation into MAP-21’s replacement.

—

Up next in 15 for ’15: The states and places to watch for transportation developments this year.

Voters in two states consider measures to restrict funding to transportation uses

Facing the uncertainty of stable federal transportation funding and often unwilling to raise their own taxes to fund transportation, some states have seized upon the idea of protecting their transportation revenues for transportation uses. On Nov. 4, Maryland and Wisconsin voters will be deciding on similar measures that would put transportation funds into protected accounts that can’t be appropriated for non-transportation uses.

Transpo Vote 2014 promo graphic

Unlike the protected federal trust fund for transportation, the revenues gathered from the systems’ users in many states (gas taxes, fees and other sources) can be appropriated for other non-transportation needs. In Maryland, more than $1.3 billion intended for transportation has been appropriated to other items in the budget over the last few years, according to Greater Greater Washington’s detailed look at the measure.

Currently, the various transportation taxes in Maryland go into a state trust fund for improving safety, reducing congestion, and improving mass transit, air travel, and port facilities — but those funds can be easily moved by legislators each year to fill other gaps in the budget.

Maryland’s Question 1 would require the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency and get a three-fifths vote from both houses of the General Assembly before any funds could be taken out of the transportation trust fund.

Supporters of Question 1 argue that by placing revenues in a “lockbox” it will ensure stable funding for long-term projects, improve accountability, and help restore the confidence of voters and those paying into the system. After all, if Maryland wanted to increase their gas tax some day in the future, it certainly becomes easier to convince voters of the need when they can also guarantee that any new revenues would be spent on transportation needs.

Proponents include a range of business groups, AAA, transit advocates in the Baltimore and Washington, DC regions, and real estate professionals; with little organized opposition to the measure.

Wisconsin is considering a similar measure. With a conservative governor, Scott Walker, and a legislature resistant to raising the gas tax or registration fees, Wisconsin’s referendum would amend the state constitution to require any revenues derived from the transportation system to be spent on transportation projects and making them non-transferable to other needs. To date, $1.3 billion has been transferred out of the transportation fund, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

The Wisconsin proposal actually had its genesis several years ago and has only now reached the ballot because state law requires two consecutive legislatures to approve a joint resolution before it can be placed on the ballot.

Supporters under the banner of “Vote Yes for Transportation” include chambers of commerce, corporations, and labor unions. While some advocates, such as Forward Lookout and Bus, Bike, Walk Wisconsin have expressed concern that this could be the first step toward restricting the use of transportation user fees for transit or other multimodal projects, nothing in this legislation appears to do anything like that, and according to Vote Yes for Transportation, “Wisconsin’s segregated transportation fund is the sole source of state funding for the entire transportation system – highways, air, rail, transit, harbors, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.”

There is no organized opposition, though some state legislators question the need for such a lockbox. Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison) expressed concerns about special interests groups, saying, “It guarantees the highway lobby a lock on certain funds. To give one special-interest group a constitutional lock on a hunk of money, I do not think is good public policy. “

According to most of the data we’ve seen, both measures are likely to pass, but we’ll be keeping an eye on the results, and posting them on Transportation Vote 2014 after the election, so check back. You can keep track of the other state and local transportation ballot measures we’re following there as well.

To better serve the states and localities stepping up to try and raise revenue to invest in transportation, we are hosting the Capital Ideas Conference in Denver, Colorado on November 13-14 shortly after this year’s elections. If you have been working on a transportation measure as part of a funding campaign, working to overcome a legislative impasse, or defending a key legislative win, this conference will offer a detailed, interactive curriculum of best practices, campaign tactics, innovative policies, and peer-to-peer collaboration to help your initiative succeed. Join us there.

House proposes a trust fund Band-aid through May, 2015, with key differences from Senate

House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI)

House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI)

A House proposal to shore up the transportation trust fund through May, 2015, is a good news, not-so-good news proposition.

Late yesterday, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) proposed a $10.8 billion infusion to cover a looming deficit in the Highway Trust Fund. The money for the next few months would come mostly from an accounting maneuver called “pension smoothing” over the next 10 years. The remainder comes from extending some customs fees and transferring $1 billion from the fund for leaking underground storage tanks.

The good news is that both Houses are now moving to take seriously the increasingly urgent warnings of insolvency coming from the Congressional Budget Office and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Absent action to transfer money to the trust fund, the flow of dollars to the states will be curtailed as much as 28 percent after Aug. 1.

The not-so-good news is that the recent hope for a speedy, bicameral solution seems lost for the moment. The House is taking a different tack from the Senate, whose Finance Committee had delayed its own proposal in hopes of negotiation a bipartisan compromise within both chambers. The Camp proposal covers a different time period – through May 31 versus Dec. 31 in the Senate – and uses different “pay-fors”. The differences mean it will be that much harder to reach a solution before the long August recess.

The other less-than-good news is that the proposal to extend into May of next year would reduce the urgency to address a long-term solution, such as the bipartisan Murphy-Corker proposal to raise the gas tax and index it to inflation. By extending only through the end of this year, the Senate deadline raised the possibility that Congress might move immediately after the election, in a lame-duck session where members feel less political pressure.

“While it doesn’t provide as much funding as I would like – enough to get through the end of next year – it does give Congress and the tax-writing Committees ample time to consider a more long-term solution to the Highway Trust Fund,” Camp said in a statement. However, Camp also indicated he is opposed to tapping the most readily available revenue source, the federal gas tax, calling it “just about the worst tax increase Congress could hit hardworking Americans with.”

The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to consider the legislation Thursday at 10:00 a.m.

On C-SPAN, T4A’s Beth Osborne finds agreement with Heritage on HTF, walkability

Beth Osborne appearing on C-SPAN July 3, 2014

Beth Osborne appearing on C-SPAN July 3, 2014. Click the image or here to watch the full video

Our compatriot Beth Osborne engaged in a spirited discussion on gas taxes and the crashing highway trust fund this morning on C-Span’s Washington Journal. Her co-panelist was Curtis Dubay, taxes and economic policy research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Dubay took less of a hard line than have some of his colleagues, who have suggested we could wind down the federal program and make the states take on everything themselves. (As an aside, can you imagine the gory fights in 50 legislatures as they try to raise gas taxes as much as 20 cents a gallon to replace the federal tax, on top of state gas taxes, which some have recently raised? How many legislative sessions would it take, and how many would just punt and let the highways, bridges and transit go to hell?)

As taxes go, Dubay said, the gas tax is a “good one”, because the people who use the resulting system are paying for it. Most people agree that infrastructure in a primary government responsibility. He even agreed a higher tax might be warranted, but only if it is restricted to highway construction.

Dubay complained that the gas tax has been diverted to “non-infrastructure purposes” like subways, ferries and road safety projects that save the lives of pedestrians and bicyclists (and motorists). To which Osborne responded:

Transit is a form of infrastructure. The purpose of the federal program is to move people and goods efficiently, not to require that people move a particular way. From the driver’s perspective it’s just as helpful to get somebody out of their way, particularly [those traveling] short distances. And it can be cheaper to move them outside their cars. … We’re looking for efficiencies and good outcomes in the program. These taxes are being used to move people the way they want to move.

There are lots of good reasons why federal gas tax dollars should be used to build and maintain a truly complete network. Transit projects in major cities make the morning commute possible for drivers, plain and simple, because without it gridlock would be absolute. Federal dollars were used to build roads that cut through neighborhoods without providing for the safety of people walking along or across them, and need to be fixed. Ferries, in states such as Washington, are part of the highway system, connecting roadways across bodies of water. These are not “diversions” from our surface transportation infrastructure; they are key components that must be part of a complete system that offers fair access for all.

In terms of who’s paying the federal gas-tax “user fee”— it’s everybody. You’re not exempt if you only use local roads and no federal highways in your commute. The cost of transporting goods, including gas and diesel taxes, is in the price of everything you buy. In the name of fairness, our taxes should be buying the safest, most efficient, most accessible system possible for all Americans – well-off or poor, young or old, whether living in cities, suburbs or small towns.

Today, market and demographic changes are demanding a new focus for our transportation investments, and that’s because … well, lets give Mr. Dubay the floor:

The market is solving the livability and walkability issue. People are moving in closer to cities. It’s a generational shift… . They are not living in the suburbs as much as they used to, largely because people don’t want to drive like they used to. Having a car and driving isn’t as romantic as it once was, that’s for sure.

If, indeed, people are going to be living in higher concentrations – and they are doing so in both cities and older suburbs – they will still need to get around. What they will need is a seamless, fully integrated network. Many will still own cars and drive them when it makes sense for them, paying gas taxes when they do. They will hope that when they need to use the highway, enough of their fellow residents will be using transit that there is actually room for them on the road.

The local leaders we work with know this, and that’s why they are trying to save the nation’s infrastructure fund from insolvency and win reforms that give them the latitude to do what they need to do. We’re glad to see folks at Heritage acknowledge the changes, and we hope that soon they will join us in declaring an end to the days of the government mandating a top-down, single-mode approach.

Favorable responses and coverage for the bipartisan Senate plan to raise the gas tax

As soon as Senators Murphy and Corker introduced their bipartisan plan yesterday to raise the gas tax by 12 cents, supportive statements starting flowing in and media outlets quickly picked up the news.

The day before the news broke, USA Today’s full editorial board weighed in on the issue and offered their preferred solution for rescuing the nation’s transportation fund: “Raise the gas tax.” They couldn’t have thought they’d see action quite so soon, but the very next day, as we reported, Senator Murphy (D-CT) and Senator Corker (R-TN) responded with a proposal that would do exactly that, raising the gas tax 12 cents to help provide “the trust fund with the stable source of income it so desperately needs.” More from the editorial:

The best way to deal with declining gas tax revenue happens to be the simplest way: Raise the gas tax. … The days of higher fuel taxes being a “third rail” of politics (touch it and you die) are long gone. In recent years, seven states have either raised their own gas taxes or imposed other fees that raise revenue. The political fallout has been minimal.

The proposal quickly made headlines around the country, from the biggest papers down to local blogs. Here’s a quick look at just a few of the responses to the Senators’ leadership.

RollCall
Gas Tax Is Imperative to a Robust Highway Bill | Commentary
With federal highway funding about to run dry this summer, will Congress vote to increase the gasoline tax to refill the Highway Trust Fund? It seems a long shot, but a bipartisan agreement begins with two – and two senators have stepped forward.

The Business Journal
Ready for higher gasoline taxes? Road projects may come to a halt without it
The gasoline tax hasn’t been raised since 1993, so maybe it’s time for an update. Plus, it seems fair to make users of the nation’s road pay for improvements. Congress has violated this principle for the past couple of years, taking $50 billion from the federal government’s general fund — thereby raising deficits — to make up for shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund.

Washington Post
Bump at the pump? Senators propose a 12-cent hike in federal gas tax
A bipartisan Senate proposal emerged Wednesday to rescue beleaguered federal transportation funding by raising the tax on gasoline by 12 cents a gallon.

Streetsblog USA
Senators Murphy (D) and Corker (R) Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase
There are several proposals on the table to stave off the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund (which pays for transit, biking, and walking projects too) in two months. Just now, two senators teamed up to announce one that might actually have a chance.

Associated Press
SENATORS PROPOSE 12-CENT GAS TAX INCREASE
Two senators unveiled a bipartisan plan Wednesday to raise federal gasoline and diesel taxes for the first time in more than two decades, pitching the proposal as a solution to Congress’ struggle to pay for highway and transit programs.

CBS News
A bipartisan push for higher gasoline taxes
The timing might seem a bit dubious, considering it’s the height of the U.S. driving season, and Americans are dealing with both geopolitical turmoil and the upcoming midterm elections.

MSNBC
A Republican who’s willing to raise the gas tax
To fix America’s crumbling roads and bridges, Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker says he’s willing to do what’s become unthinkable for most congressional Republicans: raise taxes.

WBBJ Eyewitness News Channel 7 (Jackson, TN)
Corker proposes increase to gas tax
For the first time in more than two decades, federal taxes on gasoline and diesel could be raised.

Johnson City Press/Kingsport Time News (TN)
Corker proposes higher fuel tax to pay for repairs to highway infrastructure
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker pitched his legislation Wednesday to fix up the nation’s highway infrastructure by raising federal fuel taxes by six cents twice in the next two years and paying for the hike with provisions in the so-called “tax extenders” bill.

Chattanooga Times Free Press (TN)
Bob Corker eyes 12 cent gas tax to help shore up federal road funds
U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., on Thursday proposed a bipartisan plan to raise federal gas and diesel taxes for the first time in more than two decades as an answer to long-standing funding woes threatening to stall the nation’s highway, bridge and transit programs.

The Daily Times (Blount County, TN)
Sen. Bob Corker pitches gas tax hike
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker is part of a bipartisan plan to raise the federal gas tax by 12 cents over the next two years.

Laborers’ International Union of North America
“It’s Time to End the Pothole Penalty”
LIUNA applauds Sens. Murphy and Corker for their continued bi-partisan progress in the U.S. Senate to make our roads and bridges safer and strengthen our economy by addressing the failing Highway Trust Fund with a long-term, full-investment solution.