metros Archives - Transportation For America

Federal program that helps tackle health disparities threatened in ’18 budget

Congress is threatening to eliminate a small yet significant federal program housed within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that helps local communities take concrete steps to prevent someone’s zip code from being the most powerful determinant in their long-term health.

Walking, biking, and access to transit are part of a suite of healthy choices promoted by T4America and our colleagues at the National Complete Streets Coalition. People who walk or bicycle more for transportation are shown to have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and other conditions that can complicate or shorten lives. And the demand for more opportunities to safely walk and bicycle is at an all-time high, in both heartland towns and urban centers alike.

Scores of communities are eager to find ways to improve the health of their most vulnerable residents — the people most likely to suffer from poor health outcomes — and those less likely to have access to safe streets for walking or biking. They want to know how to steer more of their transportation dollars into projects that will bring significant health benefits and reduce these disparities.

The Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health program (REACH), a small program within the CDC, has helped these communities meet the demand for more active transportation projects, address the wide disparities in health from zip code to zip code, increase access to opportunities, and create a foundation of shared and sustainable prosperity.

REACH is an evidence-based program that directly tackles these health disparities and is the only community health program currently funded at the CDC.

Both the House and Senate Appropriations bills for next year (FY 2018) eliminate funding for this critical program. Please take a moment to send a message to your representatives and urge them to keep it going.

A group of more than 200 diverse organizations — including The National Complete Streets Coalition and Transportation for America — signed a letter urging Congress to provide the program with another $50 million round of funding.

These funds are helping a plethora of communities make healthy living a reality. (We produced a series of case studies that includes some of these communities here.) It equips them to tackle the risk factors for some of the most expensive and burdensome health conditions impacting racial and ethnic groups. Without these funds communities across the country will have an even harder path to reduce disparities like these cited by the CDC:

Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest rate of obesity (44 percent), followed by Mexican Americans (39 percent).
The rate of diagnosed diabetes is 18 percent higher among Asian Americans, 66 percent higher among Hispanic/Latinos, and 77 percent higher among non-Hispanic blacks compared to non-Hispanic whites.
American Indians and Alaskan Natives are 60 percent more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites and have the highest prevalence of diabetes, with a rate more than double that of non-Hispanic whites
The incidence rate of cervical cancer is 41% higher among non-Hispanic black women and 44% higher among Hispanic/Latino women compared to non-Hispanic white women.

And as shown by the National Complete Streets Coalition in their last Dangerous by Design report, people of color are significantly overrepresented in pedestrian deaths.

Solving these kinds of pernicious issues doesn’t happen overnight.

But the REACH program is investing directly in local community coalitions with multiple years of awards, providing the time and resources necessary to address the many root causes of racial and ethnic disparities and reverse the upward trend of chronic disease.

Help protect REACH. Congress must continue to fund REACH in FY18 at the same level of investment ($50.95 million) as was provided in FY 2017.

A few of the groups leading the effort have set up an easy page for sending a message here.

Take Action

Support the new plan from a bipartisan duo of senators to send more transportation dollars to local communities

Two Senators championing the cause of giving local communities more control over their transportation dollars have introduced a modified plan to steer more federal transportation dollars directly to local communities of all sizes — reaching a compromise that they hope to incorporate into the Senate’s transportation bill as it heads to the floor.

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act has been one of our biggest priorities for more than a year now. That bill would put a small share of each state’s federal transportation dollars into a competitive grant program so that towns and cities of all sizes could compete directly on the merits for transportation funds. Local communities get a seat at the table and get more access to federal dollars that can be spent on a wide variety of locally determined transportation projects and programs.

ISTA is a great proposal and it remains active in the House of Representatives, but the two Senators who introduced it have come together on a new plan to accomplish the same goal, one with even more widespread support.

A new proposal from Senators Wicker (R-MS) and Booker (D-NJ) would put a larger share of transportation dollars directly in the hands of local governments by increasing the amount of flexible federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) dollars directly given to metropolitan areas of all sizes.

This new proposal will hopefully be offered as an amendment to the long-term transportation bill currently before the Senate.

We need to drive up support for this plan now as the Senate considers their bill. Send a message to your Senators and urge them to support this provision from Senators Booker and Wicker.

SEND A MESSAGE

It’s a proposal that works for red states and blue states, heavily urbanized areas and smaller rural towns — evident from the support of a Democratic Senator from the most urbanized state in the country, and a Republican Senator from the deep south where a large percentage of his state’s population lives in smaller urbanized areas.

How the current system works for local communities, and how it falls short

Today, small metro areas (under 200,000 people) are at the mercy of their state’s decision-making process for transportation spending in their area.

Large metro areas (over 200,000 people) directly receive a share of flexible federal dollars through a process known as suballocation. But in the smaller metro areas under 200,000 in population, those “suballocated” funds go directly to the state instead, which has total control over spending that money. The only basic requirement is that the state must spend a predetermined share of those funds within the state’s smaller metro areas, but the local community gets little say on how those dollars are spent.

Those decisions are left entirely up to the state, even though the funds are expressly intended by federal law for those smaller cities and metro areas.

While there’s some variety from state to state in how this plays out — a few select states are certainly more respectful of local communities’ wishes — it means that a local community could see their priorities passed over completely by the wishes of their state department of transportation. A state could have a pressing local priority like improving an important downtown street, and the state could instead decide to add a lane on the state highway on the edge of town instead. As long as the state spends the appropriate amount of money within that small metro area, that’s considered a proper use of the money intended for use in that community.

What would this proposal change?

The overall funding intended for metro areas and cities of all sizes would increase in two ways: First, the size of the flexible program known as the Surface Transportation Program (STP), which can be spent on almost anything from roads to bridges to transit to bike lanes, would be increased. Secondly, the share of STP that gets suballocated to metro areas increases from 50 percent of STP funding to 67 percent. That means more money will be given directly to metro areas and metropolitan planning organizations.

Last but not least, an important change is made to ensure that smaller metro areas aren’t left behind. Instead of being put solely at the state’s discretion, the share of STP dollars intended for communities under 200,000 people will be put into a competitive grant program for these areas, so these smaller communities will be able to apply for their share of the funding in a competitive grant program for their local priorities.

Who supports this new proposal in the Senate?

A compelling case can be made that Americans are willing to contribute more to invest in transportation, but they absolutely want to know that the dollars a) will be spent wisely on the projects that do the most get to work, school and daily needs and b) they want more decisions in the hands of the levels of government closest to them so they can hold them accountable.

A number of groups that represent local elected officials in communities of all sizes sent a letter to Congress this week endorsing this proposal. The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Development Organizations, the National Association of Counties, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the National Association of Regional Councils all signed onto a letter to Congress supporting the Booker-Wicker proposal, urging it to be included as an amendment to the Senate’s full long-term transportation bill currently under consideration.

What does this mean for the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act

While numerous local mayors, county executives, chambers of commerce and other local leaders have backed the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, it’s an even bigger sign of support to see these national associations which represent many of those leaders nationally endorse this new proposal, noting that it would be a win for mayors, cities, county executives, metro leaders and others.

But this new proposal wouldn’t have happened without the strong support that has been pouring in for months on the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act. Your emails, phone calls, letters and meetings have made it clear to these Senators that this idea has traction, and this new proposal is a direct result of your past support for the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act.

All of this means that in the Senate from here on out, we’ll be focusing our efforts on this amendment from Senators Booker and Wicker because it represents a far greater chance to accomplish many of the same goals as the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act. This new proposal is a smart compromise that should be incorporated into the full Senate long-term transportation bill currently on the floor, and one that will ensure that smart, locally-driven, homegrown transportation investments get the funding they need.

We’ll continue to drive up support for ISTA in the House, however, and we encourage you to continue supporting it in messages and calls to your representatives.

Send a message to your Senators and urge them to support this provision from Senators Booker and Wicker. It only takes a moment, and vocal support for this plan will be crucial to getting it incorporated into the full bill.

Cities are “laboratories of innovation.” Should they have more control of transportation funding?

Flickr photo by Cameron Adams http://www.flickr.com/photos/cameronadams/8091195427/sizes/l/

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed takes a ride on a section of the Beltline trail — one of the transportation innovations that Atlanta is most proud of. Flickr photo by Cameron Adams

That was the implied assertion made by Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed in a widely-circulated op-ed last week on Huffington Post.

I believe the future of solving much of our nation’s transportation problems lies within the vision and leadership we find in our cities. Providing the resources and decision-making authority increasingly to cities and their regions will yield enormous benefits not only to the nation’s mobility but to the returning health of our nation’s economy.

But is it accurate to paint today’s debate over this point as the same “age-old tug of war between state transportation officials and their city-level counterparts” about doling out money, as National Journal did in a question to their panel of transportation experts? Or is the problem more that we’re entering a new age of transportation needs armed with the last era’s transportation policies?

Our James Corless weighed in on the National Journal’s experts blog:

…We have a federal transportation establishment that is still geared toward last century’s primary challenge: to build an interstate highway system to facilitate long distance travel between centers of commerce. This century’s challenge is to keep people and goods moving within those ever-burgeoning centers, even as the existing system shows its age. If these places fail, our economy fails. It really is as simple as that.

Read the full question and comment over at National Journal.

Will the TIGER grants reinforce metropolitan areas?

Rob Puentes of the Brookings Institution, writing for New Republic’s The Avenue, wrote a post this morning examining where transportation stimulus dollars have been directed. You can’t get too far reading the Brookings Metro Program without seeing a notable statistic: the 100 largest metro areas contain two-thirds of our population and produce 75 percent of GDP on just a fraction of the country’s land area. Puentes notes that the transportation element of the stimulus was not especially well targeted to metro areas to best leverage that economic power.

With most of the stimulus money flowing through state DOTs that don’t always prioritize spending in metropolitan areas, that’s probably not surprising.

But he found a different story entirely when he and his colleagues examined the $1.5 billion in TIGER grants announced earlier this week. He writes:

But what about the geographic spread? Over 80 percent of the projects and 70 percent of total TIGER funding is targeted to the 100 largest metro areas. That’s not just the super-large places like New York and Chicago, but also important metros like Louisville, Tulsa, and Providence.

As Washington considers the additional steps needs to retain and create jobs, the TIGER’s recognition of the economic primacy of U.S. metropolitan area should be illustrative.