infrastructure Archives - Page 3 of 4 - Transportation For America

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of September 1st

Stories You May Have Missed

As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week.

“President Trump’s infrastructure package will be broken up into three pieces, with the largest chunk of funding dedicated to projects that already have some private or local money secured.” (The Hill)
“Trump infrastructure package could be stretched too thin.” (The Hill)
“White House wants to help states, cities offload infrastructure.” (Reuters)
The House of Representatives will vote on automated vehicle legislation next week. (Reuters)
“Governing Examines How Better Bus Service Became ‘“The Hottest Trend In Transit.”’ (Governing, via Streetsblog)
A coalition has formed to support Nashville Mayor Megan Barry’s proposed transit referendum in 2018. (Tennessean)

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 10th

Stories You May Have Missed

President “Trump says he may not work with Dems on infrastructure” but still expects bipartisan support for any plan his administration proposes. (The Hill)
“Self-driving cars could transform jobs held by 1 in 9 U.S. workers” (Marketwatch)
“Salt Lake City seeks major transit improvements, but money could be a roadblock.” (Salt Lake Tribune)
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo says that New York will actively consider congestion pricing in New York City. (NY Times)
The Washington Post looks at the transit renaissance going on in Los Angeles (Washington Post)

Stories You May Have Missed – Week of August 4th

Stories You May Have Missed

“Infrastructure borrowing drops as U.S. states await” details on President Trump’s infrastructure plan. (Reuters)
Amid growing frustration with the lack of details from the Trump administration about their infrastructure plan, Congressional committees are moving ahead gathering input and drafting their own plans. (The Hill)
The Atlantic Magazine dives into why Congressional Republicans are having trouble passing a Fiscal-Year 2018 budget resolution and what it means for their legislative agenda, including tax reform. (The Atlantic)
The Federal Rail Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have withdrawn a proposed regulation from the Obama administration that would have required railroad and truck companies to test employees for sleep apnea. (USA Today)
Senators from New York and New Jersey have prevented confirmation of certain U.S. DOT nominees because of a dispute with U.S. DOT on the amount of federal involvement in the Gateway project that would build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City. (Cetus/Wall Street Journal)
U.S. DOT has announced the winners $79 million in FASTLANE/INFRA grant awards for small projects. Awards for large projects under FASTLANE/INFRA have been delayed until the fall and U.S. DOT is requiring entities seeking awards for large projects to resubmit their application. (Progressive Railroading)

Asset Recycling – an Alternative Approach to P3s

This memo provides background on asset recycling, including its strengths, weaknesses and potential pitfalls. To learn more join us on Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 2pm EDT for a discussion on asset recycling. Register here.

What Is Asset Recycling?

Asset recycling is selling or leasing public assets and using proceeds to pay for other infrastructure. This type of public private partnership (P3) is different from other P3s, which typically engage the private sector in building and operating new infrastructure. Asset recycling instead involves two pieces of infrastructure, the asset being sold or leased to the private sector, and a second piece of infrastructure – unrelated to the first – built with the proceeds of that sale or lease. The name “asset recycling” comes from the idea that the value of the old asset is recycled to pay for the new asset.

The new infrastructure being funded by asset recycling may not be a revenue generator – whereas most other P3 approaches would require the new infrastructure to be revenue generating. The asset being sold or leased must generate revenue to be of value to private sector purchaser.

What Asset Recycling Isn’t

Asset recycling does not recycle the asset itself, only the value of that asset. Unless unused excess public property is being sold off, the fundamental underlying principle of asset recycling is that a public entity privatizes a public asset to gain access to capital in the short term at the expense of longer-term revenue. This process creates a one-time funding infusion, generally at the expense of longer-term revenue. This is not a source of long-term funding and would be better described as a form of financing, not funding.

Case Studies

Australia’s Asset Recycling Initiative

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull launched a 2-year Asset Recycling Initiative in 2014 offering $5 billion in federal funds to incentivize privatization of infrastructure like ports, power stations and transmission lines. As long as the state or territory invested the sale or lease proceeds in infrastructure, the federal government provided a 15 percent match. The program addressed state and territory-owned infrastructure, not municipal infrastructure. The Australian Senate conducted an inquiry into the process and found major risks to this approach. The report found that the program distorted the market through incentivizing the sale of assets that would not have been sold without the Australian government’s subsidy. Also, the Senate found that linking asset sales to new infrastructure investments could in fact have a negative fiscal impact by selling income-generating assets to fund infrastructure that does not generate any income. In the end, the report recommended, “the link between privatization and infrastructure funding under the Asset Recycling Initiative should be removed.” P.M. Turnbull ended the Asset Recycling Initiative in May 2016, redirecting remaining funds to other infrastructure programs.

Virginia’s I-66 Outside the Beltway

Virginia Department of Transportation entered into a P3 with Express Mobility Partners to build express lanes on a segment of I-66 outside the beltway. In one sense, this was a traditional P3 in which the private sector entity builds the express lanes and collects the tolls. However, VDOT negotiated a deal which requires Express Mobility Partners – in exchange for the rights to this project – to pay $500 million upfront for improvements to the corridor. The State also required the concessionaire to pay $800 million for transit service and $350 million for other improvements to the corridor over the next 50 years. These additional resources secured from the private entity can be viewed as recycling the value of the expressway asset into additional infrastructure and services, and they were made possible because of the McAuliffe administration’s investment in P3 expertise and development of reforms to Virginia’s approach to P3s after some past failures.

Chicago’s Parking Meter Deal

In 2008 Chicago mayor Richard Daley leased the city’s parking meters to Chicago Parking Meters LLC for 75 years in exchange for $1.16 billion. The private entity increased meter rates, added metering in areas that had not yet had it, and charged the city for lost revenue whenever parking spaces were unavailable – for example, during repaving. The deal also prevented the city from opening new off-street lots that could compete with the on-street metered spaces. In addition, rather than reinvesting the funding in new infrastructure, the city used it to fill budget holes. By 2010, only $180 million of the original sum was left.

Concerns And limitations

There are many elements to privatizing a public asset that impact whether that asset can serve its function effectively, such as determining:

whether the agreement requires the asset to be properly maintained before being passed back to the public ownership at the end of the lease;
how much local control to surrender;
the price the public pays for the service change;
whether the asset will be managed in a way that is consistent with public goals.

Without expertise in P3 agreements, governments risk negotiating problematic deals for themselves. P3 offices established in Virginia and District of Columbia have helped them to cultivate expertise to support P3 agreements.

Unlike other P3 arrangements, asset recycling couples two separate decisions – selling or leasing a publicly owned asset, and investing in new infrastructure. Each of these has its risks, but when they are combined in a single action with the federal government incenting the deal, the risks multiply. As with other P3s, asset recycling are better viewed as a form of financing rather than a source of long term funding. Selling or leasing a revenue-generating public asset means a government loses ongoing revenue in exchange for a one-time payment.

One concern with evaluating P3s and asset recycling is that both public and private debt should be considered in order to leverage financing. Optionality is key to a good deal. By comparing the private sector funding source against public or municipal debt, communities will be able to negotiate the best deal for taxpayers.

Limitations in Rural Communities

Asset recycling is of limited utility for smaller jurisdictions, who are less likely to own public infrastructure that can be effectively privatized. Aside from some toll roads, most revenue generating infrastructure assets – such as airports, parking garages, ports, or transit systems – are in dense urban areas, not rural or mid-size communities. The assets that small communities do have may not generate significant enough funding to address local infrastructure needs.

Smaller jurisdictions also have more limited resources to invest in P3 expertise. For example, moving forward on projects that involve the private sector without having capacity to calculate the net present value (the difference between the present value of cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows) can open communities to unwanted risk.

An analysis published by APM Reports in May shows that of 520 projects submitted to the Trump Administration for possible inclusion in an infrastructure package, 46 projects have sponsors considering private financing and of those only 2 projects are located in rural communities.[1] This analysis clearly shows that private investment primarily focuses in larger population centers.

Some have suggested that using asset recycling to finance project in urban areas would make more resources available for rural areas, or that states might consider urban assets to fund rural infrastructure needs. However, if the income from the asset being sold had previously gone to the urban area, this could be a highly controversial diversion of funds from one portion of the state to another. Existing funding sources already raise a disproportionate amount of funding from metropolitan regions, but do not meet the full needs in rural communities.

[1] http://wuwm.com/post/trumps-desire-private-infrastructure-money-will-narrow-his-choices-mostly-urban-projects#stream/0

Stories You May Have Missed: June 26th – June 30th

Stories You May Have Missed

Senator John Thune (Republican-South Dakota), the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said work on an infrastructure plan could slip into next year. (The Hill)
With “asset recycling” a big part of President Trump’s infrastructure plan, the Economist explores the “promises and pitfalls” of asset recycling. (The Economist)
S. DOT has revised the FASTLANE program’s criteria and changed the name to the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program. (The Hill)
Amidst proposals from the White House to privatize some infrastructure to pay for their proposed infrastructure plan, the Senate Commerce Committee has rejected the White House’s proposal to privatize the U.S.’s air-traffic control system. (The Hill)
Amtrak has named former Delta Airlines CEO Richard Anderson as their new CEO effective June 12^th. He will be co-CEO with current CEO Wick Moorman until December 31^st. (The Hill)
The Hill lists six potential contenders to be Uber’s new CEO after former CEO Travis Kalanick resigned. (The Hill)
Oregon Governor Kate Brown and state legislature leaders reached an agreement on a package to raise funds for transportation. (The Register Guard)

Stories You May Have Missed: June 19th – June 23rd

Stories You May Have Missed

U.S. Conference of Mayors attendees are “hungry for details about Trump’s infrastructure plan.” (Marketplace)
The Senate Commerce Committee has rejected the White House’s proposal to privatize the U.S. air-traffic control system. (The Hill)
Autonomous vehicle bills are on the horizon. (The Hill)
“States raising gas taxes to fund transportation improvements.” (Fox News)
Inside Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s resignation. (NY Times)

Copy this tactic: Community Transit defends program by using unexpected voices

Last week, I visited with T4A’s members and partners in the Puget Sound region. In the time of “skinny budgets” and tenuous federal support for transit, it was encouraging to hear from local elected officials, advocates and transit agencies on how they’re progressing despite federal (and in their case state) uncertainty.

On the federal level, this region will be among the hardest hit if Congress declines to fund the capital improvement program, with more than $2 billion in federal New Starts investments at risk. These projects include:

$1.17 billion for the Lynnwood Link Extension
up to $720 million for the Federal Way Link Extension
$75 million for the Seattle Streetcar Center City Connector
$75 million for Tacoma Link Expansion
$43 million for Swift II BRT in Everett
$61 million for Madison Street Corridor Bus Rapid Transit in Seattle

These numbers don’t include the threats to passenger rail service or to TIGER.

Rather than throw their hands up in frustration, Community Transit, a T4America member, is using this as an opportunity to tell the story about the economic and job benefits of their Swift bus rapid transit line. We are seeing more and more transit agencies talk not just about the direct benefits they provide to their community, but also the upstream jobs that are created…whether the buses they buy are manufactured in Everett, Washington or St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Community Transit’s Swift Green Line Infographic

Copy this tactic: Including suppliers and engaging your entire supply chain gives you the ability to reach other decision-makers that you may not otherwise have access to. It builds your advocate tent and adds unexpected voices to your issue.

For example, when Community Transit gives this powerful piece of information to one of their members of Congress, Rick Larsen, a Democrat…he can advocate to Tom Emmer, the Republican Member of Congress from St. Cloud. Additionally, their bus manufacturer can advocate to Rep. Emmer directly. This is just one way to show leaders how transportation is truly a bipartisan issue.

T4America continues to find stories like these to use in our work and highlight what’s working. If you have similar stories that you’d like to share with us, please send them our way. We want to know!

House T&I Committee Hearing: “Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America”

Link to hearing page: here.

On February 1st the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee held its first hearing of the new Congress to host a broad discussion on the need to invest in infrastructure.

The hearing panelists were:

Fred Smith, Chairman, President, and CEO of the FedEx Corporation
David MacLennan, Chairman and CEO of Cargill, Inc.
Ludwig Willisch, President and CEO of BMW of North America
Mary Andringa, Chair of the Board of the Vermeer Corporation
Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO

Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) called the hearing to discuss the need for investment in infrastructure. Rep. Shuster began the hearing by noting two new additions to the committee room: quotations from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and from the U.S. Constitution which emphasize infrastructure development as an important function of the federal government.

In contrast to Rep. Shuster’s general endorsement of infrastructure spending, Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-OR) came out with several specific financing proposals, including increasing and indexing fuel taxes, reassigning fees collected at ports to fund harbor maintenance, and raising the cap on passenger facility fees used to finance airport improvements.

The panelists all strongly supported, in principle, additional investment in this area and the business leaders each spoke of how predictable travel on highways, waterways and through ports and airports was critical to their businesses.

Comments from the panel

FedEx Chairman Fred Smith noted, and frequently repeated through the hearing, that his company and nearly all others in the transportation sector support an increase in user fees to support additional spending on infrastructure. He specifically endorsed an increase in motor fuel taxes as well as new congestion charges assessed through EZ-pass-type electronic tolling. Smith repeatedly referred to a list of twenty Interstate highway projects that were designed and ready to build if funding were available and said these projects would reduce congestion and help his business.

Cargill CEO David MacLennan urged the committee to focus not just on the new technology and “shiny objects,” but to continue to maintain existing infrastructure, noting how important highways, freight rail and, especially, inland waterways are to the agriculture industry.

BMW America CEO Ludwig Willisch noted the intermodal global supply chains that the company’s U.S. manufacturing depends on and also that well-maintained infrastructure would help automated vehicle development.

Vermeer Chair Mary Andringa thanked the committee for new projects funded by the FASTLANE grant program.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka urged the committee to include existing worker protections and seek the lowest cost of capital in any transportation financing arrangement, including public-private partnerships. He also noted that private financing would be unlikely to cover needs in rural areas. He argued a big investment – on the order of $1 trillion – would be needed to repair the existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure to replace that which is becoming technologically obsolete.

Summary of questions and comments from members

In his opening remarks, Rep. DeFazio stated that he hoped Congress would bring back some earmarking for critical projects, stating that representatives best know the needs and priorities of their districts. Rep. DeFazio separately noted a provision he worked to include in the FAST Act that would allow new funding made available to flow out directly though existing formula programs. Further, Rep. DeFazio encouraged the committee to focus on repair of existing infrastructure, noting that President Trump has made the same appeal to “fix-it-first.”

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) noted that spending on infrastructure is the best economic stimulus and said of new revenue, “The American people ok paying it as long as they know every penny is used to the best that it could.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) lamented that we are now letting fall into disrepair what earlier generations had the courage to build and asked about possible alternative funding sources to replace or supplement the fuel tax.

Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) asked if BMW would consider using the automated vehicle testing facility in Ohio.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) expressed concerns that increasing automation in manufacturing logistics, and construction sectors would displace workers and said that while many expect new infrastructure spending would create many new jobs, that may not be the case. FedEx’s Smith noted support for a new law in Tennessee to provide worker training and skills development.

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) asked if the federal government should get involved directly in toll roads or congestion pricing and if the committee should be considering truck-only tollways. FedEx’s Smith responded that such lanes would be a possibility but are not necessary.

Rep. Rick Larsen (WA) asked about the potential of NextGen air traffic control and asked Richard Trumka how labor is supporting workforce development in the transportation industry.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) addressed Ranking Member DeFazio’s proposals, saying that he supported a user fee funding source for transportation, but thought it would be difficult to raise such fees as long as funds were, in his words, “leaking out” to bike paths and beautification projects.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) noted the need to invest in transit and the importance of moving people as well as freight. He noted that the committee had already considered P3 financing and found that only approximately 10% of projects could be appropriate for such financing.

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) asked whether BMW would make the same decision as it had 20 years ago to move to South Carolina given current infrastructure. BMW’s Willisch said it would and noted that the company had just invested another $1 billion in their operations there

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) asked about electrifying vehicle fleets, specifically at FedEx.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) expressed surprised agreement with AFL-CIO’s Trumka on the importance in investing in new, transformative technologies.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) expressed frustration that the committee continued to discuss the importance of infrastructure investment but that the majority had not offered a concrete plan for funding infrastructure. She asked Trumka is repatriation of profits or P3s would be a solution; he responded that they would not.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) noted that families are already paying for infrastructure through fuel taxes and the cost of products delivered. He asked what the committee could do to help the panelists’ companies without new funding. Only Cargill’s MacLennan answered, noting existing funding already available.

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) stated that her priority was creating jobs and asked what investments would best support poverty reduction.

Rep. Jason Lewis (R-MN) noted that residents in his suburban district are reliant on cars. He asked whether congestion pricing could peak congestion and noted that opponents say there is no way to build out of congestion. FedEx’s Smith said congestion pricing would work, as slow-downs are created at the margin so moving a few trips would have an effect. However he also argued that building new highways and adding capacity was the only way to eliminate congestion.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) hoped for a user fee for transportation to be exempted from the no taxes pledge.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), who previously served in the Pennsylvania State Senate, noted how the industry-led public education effort built the support necessary to pass new transportation funding at the state level in 2013 [see more on that effort here]. He asked panelists what they are doing to build that public support now at the federal level.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) announced he would introduce legislation to close loopholes in the Buy America provisions and require that Buy America waivers be published in the Federal Register. He also asked the panelists what the federal government could do to support the development of automated vehicles.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) asked panelists how private companies or P3s could better construct infrastructure. He offered an example from his district where businesses are interested in financing an interchange to access their sites. He challenged Trumka on Davis-Bacon requirements.

Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) spoke of the importance of workforce development and asked about workforce training at a time of changing technology.

Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) asked for the panelists’ business advice on how to better prioritize projects, noting examples of four-lane highways with very few vehicles on them. He also asked whether water transport of freight could reduce highway congestion.

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-NJ) noted that investments in the Port of Newark, Newark Airport, and the Gateway Tunnel were important.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) asked whether panelists would support dedicating royalties collected on from mineral resources to fund transportation.

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) spoke of the importance of locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

Greater federal investment in infrastructure welcomed, but must be paired with increases in accountability and transparency

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

After the release of the Senate Democrats’ $1 trillion infrastructure proposal, Beth Osborne, Senior Policy Advisor for Transportation for America, released this statement:

“It’s encouraging to see the Democrats in the Senate respond to President Trump’s charge to beef up America’s investment in infrastructure spending by advancing their own proposal that is multimodal, increases competitive funding, and provides more money for main streets across the country.

“But funding alone will not truly solve the complex problems facing our country’s transportation networks. We increased federal transportation spending year-over-year for at least two decades, yet we still ended up in this situation today with growing backlogs of repair needs, increasing fatalities on our roads, and residents with fewer access to jobs and opportunities than before.

“We do need more infrastructure investment, but we also need that investment to be transparent, accountable and bring the greatest benefits for each dollar spent. This proposal does not specify how the funding would be distributed or how transportation agencies would be held accountable for actually bringing their roads, bridges or transit systems into a state of good repair. How can taxpayers be certain that we wouldn’t just continue a long pattern of neglecting our growing repair needs while building yet more things that come with additional years of maintenance costs?

“That said there are some notable positives worth highlighting in the proposal.

“This proposal directs more than $100 billion directly into the hands of local governments to invest in their priority projects — a move worth applauding. Local leaders in cities and towns of all sizes are the ones who know their specific needs best, but they’re often not even at the table when decisions are made in state offices about where and how to invest. The innovative competitive TIGER grant program — one of the few sources that locals can access directly — doubles to at least $1 billion per year.

“Allocating $200 billion to ‘Vital Infrastructure Projects’ correctly recognizes that we have scores of large projects that are often mega-regional in scope, with significant benefits for the national economy. But it also raises several important questions: who determines which projects to fund? Is this a return of congressional earmarking? Will the most cost-effective large projects be selected, or the projects with the greatest political heft?

“The elephant in the room is the funding source for this ambitious package. Congressional leaders used every accounting maneuver in the book to avoid dealing with our nation’s bankrupt highway trust fund in order to pass a five-year transportation authorization that didn’t cut spending back in 2015. How do they propose to pay for this ambitious investment package?

“Without addressing that difficult question head-on, it’s challenging to fully assess this proposal.”

The 1 thing you need to know about President Obama’s clean transportation plan

On February 4, the White House released President Obama’s 21st Century Clean Transportation System plan to be included in his FY2017 budget proposal expected out on February 9. The President asserts that his budget proposal will strengthen the nation’s transportation fund through one-time revenues from business tax reform and a $10 per barrel fee on oil, and make large investments in transit and improve funding for local and regional governments.

“This is a new vision. We’re realistic about near-term prospects in Congress, but we think this can change the debate,” one senior administration official said.

The announcement comes two months after the passage of the 5 year surface transportation bill known as the FAST Act. However, Congressional leaders have not expressed willingness to consider the proposal.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) made this point clear. “President Obama’s proposed $10 per barrel tax on oil is dead on arrival in the House.”

What the plan proposes

The plan includes a wide range of innovative solutions. It would refocus federal investments to reduce congestion, reform the existing transportation formula programs, and invest in competitive programs, including the popular Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. It would also increase investments in mass transit funding by $20 billion annually, provide $2 billion for an autonomous and low-emission vehicle pilot, and add $10 billion per year to reform local and regional transportation programs. The latter would include new discretionary grant programs for regions that lower emissions and better link land use decisions with transportation investments.

To pay for these investments, revenues from a $10 per barrel fee paid by oil companies would be phased in over 5 years. During the development of the FAST Act, Congress was unwilling to even hold a floor vote on increasing transportation user-fees, which hasn’t been raised in over 23 years.

What can other states learn from California’s shift to better measure how streets move people

In 2013, the State of California passed legislation that makes a dramatic change in how the state measures the performance of their streets. Rather than use the traditional level of service (LOS) measure that focuses far too narrowly on moving as many cars as fast as possible — regardless of the context or needs of a street — California’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is shifting to an alternative of measuring vehicle-miles traveled (VMT).

In this first post of a six-post series only for T4America members, Transportation for America will walk through the change from LOS to VMT, highlight the opinions of a variety of leaders on this issue and discuss the implications for California’s transportation system and potential implications nationwide.

Reminder, moving away from level of service (LOS) was one of the key recommendations in our new state policy report, released in January 2016. Don't miss that helpful resource.

Note: moving away from level of service (LOS) was one of the key recommendations detailed in our new state policy report, released in January 2016. Don’t miss that helpful resource.

In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 743, eliminating the use of LOS for projects within designated transit priority areas (TPAs). As Streetsblog LA reported in 2013, SB 743 was a compromise between interests who wanted the full elimination of LOS in California and advocates pushing for the full and immediate elimination of LOS as a requirement for any project. But, because most urban areas fall within the state-defined parameters of a TPA, the enactment of SB 743 means that LOS is largely eliminated for urban projects.

Additionally, SB 743 authorized Governor Brown to develop a new way of measuring traffic impacts of major projects statewide and based the new way on total VMT rather than intersection congestion. (1) This will change how development projects are analyzed and scored in traffic impact studies and thus the type of development projects that California supports.

What this means

In short, instead of measuring whether or not a proposed project will make it less convenient to drive, (CalTrans) will now measure whether or not a project contributes to other state goals, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing multimodal transportation, preserving open spaces, and promoting diverse land uses and infill development. (2) It is expected that this change will make it easier to build transit projects, as well as bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure.

But perhaps a larger change will be the type of development the law now encourages. Instead of encouraging sprawl that goes against California’s own environmental goals, these new guidelines will encourage development that moves California to a more sustainable transportation system. (3)

Status of Draft Guidelines

In August 2014, OPR released draft guidelines proposing to substitute VMT for the LOS metric (as authorized by SB 743). Under the draft guidelines, California no longer considers bad LOS a problem that needs fixing under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (4)

On January 20th 2016, OPR released the final draft of the changes to CEQA. The January 20th release signals the 45-day initial public comment period before finalizing the proposal and submitting to the California Natural Resources Agency to begin the formal rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedure Act. The regulations are anticipated to be effective statewide in 2019. (5)

Final Guidelines

The final guidelines are very similar to the draft guidelines with only slight changes. In the final proposal, OPR continues to recommend replacing LOS with VMT as the primary metric for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts, including the presumption that projects near transit (1/2 mile or less) should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact and that transportation projects which add lane miles may result in induced vehicle travel. (6) In a big win for smart growth advocates, the guidelines emphasize that effects on automobile delay do not constitute a significant environmental impact. (7)

The new guidelines would remain optional for a two-year period following adoption, but would apply statewide to all development projects by 2019. (8)

Draft Guideline Rules on Impact Analysis

The final guidelines contain significant changes on the types of triggers needed to spur an environmental impact statement. Divided into three categories; land use projects, residential projects and office projects, all triggers are established at below a commonly accepted baseline level. The new proposal attempts to streamline the implemention of SB 743, with recommendations regarding significance thresholds, for required traffic analyses of development projects. (9)

These new threshold guidelines mean that development projects that will significantly increase the amount of automobile traffic that will be required to undergo rigorous environmental impact statements to ensure that they are compliant with California’s statewide greenhouse gas law.

Citations:

Newton, D. and Curry, M. (2014, August 7^th). California Has Officially Ditched Car-Centric ‘Level of Service’. LA Streetsblog. Retrieved February 1^st from /http://la.streetsblog.org/2014/08/07/california-has-officially-ditched-car-centric-level-of-service/
Newton, D. (2016, January 22^nd). State Releases Proposed Rules That Would Finally End LOS in Enviro. Law. Streetsblog California. Retrieved February 1^st from http://cal.streetsblog.org/2016/01/22/state-releases-proposed-rules-that-would-finally-end-los-in-environmental-law/
Ibid 2
Ibid 2
Ibid 3
Lathom and Watkins LLP. (2016, January 26^th). California Governor’s Office Releases Updated CEQA Guidelines Proposal on SB 743 Implementation. Retreived 2016/2/01 from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b070fa40-a4ff-4ce1-a6db-f2bd104cce31
Ibid 5
Ibid 5
Ibid 5

House Committee passes a multi-year surface transportation bill

On October 23^rd, the US House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee passed out of committee a long-term surface authorization. The bill, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act (HR 3763), authorizes the federal surface transportation program for six years, and recommends flat line funding plus inflation over the life of the bill.

Transportation for America (T4A) published a summary of the bill (pre-mark-up) for members, click HERE to download it.

Ultimately, the big-four agreement – a bipartisan agreement determining which amendments would be allowed, accepted or rejected that exists between the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the full- and subcommittees – proved to hold firm during yesterday’s nearly six-hour meeting.

Of the 160 plus amendments offered during the mark-up by members of the committee, the Chairman agreed to only three:

adding tourism to state and MPO planning scopes,
exempting weight limits for emergency vehicles, and
including a performance metric on urban highway state of good repair.

Only two received votes and both failed by large margins. In return for assurances by Chairman Shuster (R-PA) that the Members’ concerns would be taken care of before the bill reaches the House floor, nearly all Members offered and withdrew their amendments.

Of importance, Representatives Davis (R-IL) and Titus (D-NV) offered an amendment to increase the amount of funding directed to metro regions by $9 billion over the life of the bill and improve the transparency and project selection process for regions under 200,000 in population. Download the Davis-Titus summary memo HERE.

Though Rep. Davis (R-IL) had the votes yesterday to pass this amendment, he offered and withdrew the amendment after it gained the largest number of bipartisan statements of support during the markup (those came from Reps. Davis, Titus, Frankel (D-FL), Edwards (D-MD), Rouzer (R-NC)). Chairman Shuster signaled that he is open to working with the bipartisan group to make improvements to this area of the bill as it moves forward in the process.

There were also a number of non-controversial amendments included in the manager’s amendment prior to the start of the meeting. Notable amendments include:

Sires (D-NJ) and Costello (R-PA) – amends the planning section to encourage MPOS to develop congestion management plans that develop strategies and projects that improve transportation access during peak hour travel and would include employers and representatives of low-income households.
Curbelo (R-FL) and Titus (D-NV) – amends the safe streets language to encourage reporting on the development and implementation of safe streets at the state level.

Despite a number of statements of support from various organizations, T4A finds that this bill doesn’t meet the forward-looking federal policies needed to strengthen the economic and social prosperity of our nation’s communities. We will continue to work to ensure the House STRR Act and the Senate DRIVE Act move in our direction and I thank you for your support.

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 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:

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.

Boston’s Olympic bid aims to be the first where you don’t need a car

Three Massachusetts-based organizations recently published Putting Legacy First, a report that makes a series of recommendations intended to support the official 2024 Boston Olympics bid. Their smart recommendations focus on ensuring that the transportation investments made to support a walkable, transit-oriented Olympics and Paralympics will also be primed to serve the Bay Staters well for years to come.

The authors recognize the potential of transportation as a catalyst for short and long-term change. Improvements that the city and state officials can start on now will improve Boston immediately, like addressing the backlog of MBTA’s maintenance needs or focusing future development on creating more walkable, bikeable and livable neighborhoods in affected areas, will also go a long way to making a more widely supported bid. Additionally, by rallying around the challenge of being the first Olympic and Paralympic games that visitors can attend car-free, the authors pose a challenge to federal, state and local officials to think about transportation for the disabled and enabled populations equally.

“We’ve known for a long time that our transportation system – especially the MBTA – needed lots of maintenance and investment just like many transit systems throughout our country. This winter certainly proved it. The Games could provide the deadline that the Boston area may need to create a system Bostonians can be proud of, but it requires that the state, cities and towns, and the Olympic host committee work together to overcome the political and financial barriers that stand in the way of a world-class transportation system,” said Kristina Egan, director of Transportation for Massachusetts.

How do they propose to achieve this goal? Putting Legacy First has eight transportation recommendations, Putting Legacy First Cover a few of which are summarized below:

The Olympics and Paralympics should serve as a catalyst to accelerate efforts to make the MBTA fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Infrastructure improvements that are solely related to the Games should be financed entirely by private sources. Projects that generate shared benefits to the Games as well as long-term public benefits should be financed by a mix of public and private funds.
Since all the main venues are along the coast or Charles River, the report strongly suggests Olympic planners use the Games as an opportunity to build resilience to climate change, sea level rise and storm surges.

One concern expressed by the critics of the Boston 2024 bid is the fear that citizens will wind up paying for a large amount of new infrastructure while receiving few of the benefits. What they view as a current lack of public information and participation adds to this concern. In response, the report offers ways to mitigate those concerns by clearly defining public and private sector roles, as well as recommending that the Commission, “maximize public input and participation with a special focus on under-represented groups”.

“We have to put legacy first,” said Marc Draisen, executive director of MAPC, whose staff are the prime authors of the report. “It’s not just about writing a winning bid and making the Games a success; it’s about making sure our region ends up with more affordable homes, better jobs, beautiful parks, and a 21st century transportation system. These things won’t just happen by themselves. We have to leverage the Olympic bid to make them happen, and the sooner the better.”

While the International Olympic Committee will not announce the 2024 host city until 2017, many civic-minded groups are ready to fight for a blueprint that ensures their investments into such an opportunity benefit the greater Boston region and have lasting positive effects for decades to come.

Putting Legacy First was written and published jointly by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, Transportation for Massachusetts and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (a T4A member).

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.

If you see nothing else this spring, you’ve got to watch the trailer for ‘Infrastructure!’

On his late night HBO show, the British comic John Oliver took up the cause of our nation’s infrastructure — with help from some Hollywood A-listers (and a couple suggestions from us).

Goodness knows we’ve tried to get America’s attention on the issue, and no matter how many catchy infographics or compelling reports full of eye-popping statistics we produce, they’ll never reach as many people as Hollywood does with even the most mediocre movie.

That was John Oliver’s conclusion on his weekly show: Hollywood has been blowing up our infrastructure for decades, and viewers will turn out reliably to watch the destruction time after time in Die Hard 9 or The Day After the Day After Tomorrow. Oliver decided that what we really need is a blockbuster movie that can make routine preventive maintenance on a bridge just as awesome as Bruce Willis can make blowing it all up with a F-22.

Watch the whole segment, but the explosive trailer for a sure-to-be Hollywood summer blockbuster starts around 17 minutes in.

We were delighted to be able to provide some background information to the show’s producers as they prepared the piece, but they never told us about the movie. Next time, maybe we should trade information for a few minor roles in the actual movie?

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

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.

Four senators introduce bill to help finance transit-oriented development

Building structured parking, public amenities and pedestrian-safe streets are part of the public infrastructure needed for successful economic development around transit.

Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have introduced an important bill to make it easier for communities to support economic development around transit stations.

For any community with a high-capacity transit line – subway, light rail, bus rapid transit – encouraging walkable development around the stations is a no-brainer. By attracting more potential riders, it makes the best use of the transit investment and helps to build the tax base.

Even more importantly, it helps to meet growing demand for homes and workplaces in neighborhoods with easy access to transit. And who is driving that demand? To a large degree it is the talented young workforce that every area is looking to recruit and retain. [See our poll with the Rockefeller Foundation] At the same time, a significant share of baby boomers is looking for similar things, as an American Planning Association poll showed this week.

Doing transit-oriented development right often means retrofitting streets so that they are safe and inviting for people on foot and provide good traffic flow, and building parking structures rather than surface lots, among other improvements. But it is the rare developer who has resources enough to finance the upfront costs of public infrastructure and utilities before the revenue from the finished development starts rolling in.

The Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure Financing Act would help provide low-cost financing in the form of loans or loan guarantees under the highly successful TIFIA program, which was expanded under MAP-21. Eligible borrowers, whether a state or local government or public-private partnership, would have to demonstrate a reliable, dedicated revenue source to repay the loan needed for public infrastructure.

This bill would help to support communities in creating public-private partnerships that help to spur economic development, build the local tax base, improve neighborhoods and infrastructure and make the most of transit investments. Senators Schatz, Markey, Merkley and Gillibrand are to be commended for their vision in introducing the TOD Infrastructure Financing Act.

America’s infrastructure improves slightly over 2009, still a failing grade

America’s civil engineers raised the grade given to our country’s infrastructure from four years ago, but unfortunately, it’s still a failing grade for America.

With the $3.3 trillion dollars needed by 2020 (according to ASCE) unlikely to arrive in this current climate of reduced budgets and austerity, is there a way forward that can make smarter decisions with the money we have and knock back our maintenance backlog while still investing in the 21st century infrastructure our country needs?

The latest edition of the every-four-years report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gives America a “D”, up from the “D-minus” we received in 2009. Improvement is always good, but a failing grade is still unacceptable, like a baseball player who hits a homer in a game his team loses.

“While our country’s association of civil engineers continues to do the yeoman’s work of sounding the alarm on our country’s infrastructure,” said T4 America director James Corless this morning, “it’s a sad reality that little has changed since the last Report Card in 2009.”

The truth is that few should be surprised at the state of things when they log on to the fantastic new ASCE interactive report card app (available on the web as well as for Android, iPhone and tablets) and sift through the national and state data.

Few would be surprised, because has anything here in Washington changed to drastically improve the condition of our roads, bridges and transit systems? Last summer, Congress finally passed a replacement to the transportation bill that expired just a few months after the last ASCE report card was issued — in 2009. Though a definite sign of progress in some areas, the new law provided no new dollars for transportation in the two years to come. The program dedicated to repairing our country’s 69,000 structurally deficient bridges was eliminated after making steady progress on reducing the backlog over the last 20 years.

Beyond the federal bill, which only represents about a quarter of all transportation spending, state and local revenues in many places are falling rapidly (MAP-21 held federal funding level at least) leading many Governors and state legislatures to float alternate plans for raising for revenue to make needed repairs and build anew.

While we certainly believe we need to increase the amount of money that we spend on infrastructure (especially transportation), simply increasing the amount of money is no panacea — ASCE is certainly right that we need to change how the money is spent — it’s not enough to pour more money into a cup with a hole in the bottom.

ASCE has some encouraging recommendations in this year’s report card moving the discussion in the direction of smarter, more transparent spending on infrastructure. We do need more leadership, more transparency, and a “focus on sustainability and resilience,” as they say in their recommendations. And we can no longer ignore growth patterns and things like a housing-jobs mismatch when making transportation decisions, affirmed by ASCE’s insistence that “infrastructure plans should be synchronized with regional land use planning.”

Some states aren’t waiting for billions that are unlikely to come and are already far ahead of the curve, thinking about ways to make their dollars do more. Like Massachusetts, where the DOT director issued a goal of tripling the number of trips taken by foot, bike and public transportation — reducing the load on roads and bridges that are among the oldest in the country. Or Tennessee, where the state DOT has taken a long look at their list of their proposed projects to see if they’re really necessary at a time when funding is dwindling, resources are scarce, and residents are looking for options to sitting in traffic.

Pushed between a rock and a hard place with forced austerity through reduced budgets yet being asked to do more with less, it’s time for a different approach.

With $1.7 trillion in needs by 2020 for surface transportation identified by ASCE and MAP-21 funding levels only due to bring in about $400 billion in that same time period, it begs the question: Who’s going to pay the difference? While ASCE avoids the question specifically, they do assert, much as we do, that there will continue to be an important role for the feds in planning and paying for infrastructure. “Federal investment must be used to complement, encourage, and leverage investment from the state and local government levels as well as from the private sector,” the report says. But it doesn’t stop there. “In addition, users of the infrastructure must be willing to pay the appropriate price for their use.”

Will we be willing to pay for what we need? Or do too many people think that we need to make the spending smarter before we make it bigger? However you answer, there’s not really an option other than smarter spending for the next two years, because MAP-21 didn’t provide any new money to states.

Yet MAP-21’s expiration is already on the horizon and the Highway Trust Fund is still headed towards its own fiscal cliff. The Senate budget resolution and the President have both suggested big increases in transportation spending. But where will the money come from? Despite key questions about where that revenue would come from, the simple fact that the 113^th session of Congress has started with a number of proposals to increase investment in infrastructure, along with supportive comments from new House Transportation Chair Bill Shuster, have given transportation advocates a reason to be hopeful.

“With the federal gas tax bringing in less money every year, strong leadership from Congress is needed now more than ever,” said T4’s James Corless.

—

Some comparisons with 2009 at a glance:

Bridges improved from a C to C+
Rail improved from a C- to C+
Roads improved slightly from a D- to D
And transit was unchanged at a D

U.S. communities step up, hoping a strong federal commitment to infrastructure will follow

Is the era of massive, transformational infrastructure investment over? Or are we merely in a transitional phase as the gas tax loses its former power and we debate both new revenue sources and even more importantly, new priorities, for the next generation of transportation investment?

One thing is certain: as Congress is finally close to passing a transportation bill more than 953 days after it first expired, many cities and communities have charged ahead with more “fine-grained” approaches to transportation funding and construction. These cities and regions have a sharp understanding that the choices made about infrastructure today affect their economies for years to come and are taking steps to make those needed investments today.

But will they be enough without the strong federal partner we’ve had for the last 50 years leading the way?

That remains to be seen, according to this compelling new report from the Urban Land Institute out yesterday, which lays out the state of infrastructure investment here and around the world. But it also points out innovative ways to take the situation we have — flat-lined federal investment and no likely windfall of cash for large scale infrastructure anytime soon — and do all we can with the dollars we have to build the system that will carry us deep into the 21st century.

One key change ULI suggests we might see is one we’ve been pushing for from day one at T4 America — and also in the current House/Senate conference: measuring the performance of the dollars we spend to see if they’re helping us meet our goals, and holding states accountable if they don’t. “Ironically, fiscal constraints finally may compel some better results,” they say, “figuring out what matters most, and what will get the best bang for the buck, becomes even more urgent.”

The report is a good overview of the state of our country’s infrastructure, how we fund it, and the challenges we’re currently facing right now — all of which are things we’ve all heard regularly. There’s been no shortage of reports and calls to action and reminders of the sorry state of our country’s infrastructure over the last few years. Which is why the most exciting parts of this report chronicle all the different ways that states, cities and local communities are stepping out on their own, raising funds from innovative sources, casting their own vision for transportation, and hoping that the federal government will soon again reaffirm its commitment as a strong financial partner.

As we’re fond of pointing out, when there’s transparency and accountability for exactly what transportation dollars are going to buy — this new transit line, that new busway, this new bridge project — transportation ballot measures pass close to 70 percent of the time, even when voters are taxing themselves. Check out this graphic from the report on transportation ballot measures.

Click to enlarge.

There’s also a great section on Measure R and America Fast Forward, Los Angeles’ innovative plan to build 30 years of transit projects in 10 years. Two-thirds of L.A. voters approved a 30-year sales tax as a dedicated funding stream for the program that will also be used to leverage what they hope will be loans and low-cost financing from the federal government. This L.A. story, just like so many others of innovation highlighted in the report, are indeed examples of innovation, but examples that urgently need federal help and partnership to truly succeed. They’re stepping up with innovation and local funding, but they can’t go it alone.

Let’s hope that Congress passes a strong transportation bill soon and affirms a new role for the federal government in both supporting and rewarding the kind of innovation highlighted in this report that’s beginning to bubble up around the country.

Read the full report here.