multimodal Archives - Transportation For America

Three strategies for smart electrification

*Flickr photo by Oregon Department of Transportation*

When it comes to the climate crisis, we at T4A have historically been focused on the land use and transportation options that can reduce driving to cut emissions. However, transportation electrification is also essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here are three key strategies for doing it right.

T4America got involved in the Coalition Helping America Rebuild and Go Electric (CHARGE), an effort we are co-leading with the Clean Vehicles Coalition, to help bring a smart growth perspective to electrification. CHARGE is made up of transportation, industry, environmental, labor, health, equity, and civic organizations that support smart policy to electrify America’s transportation system. If your organization is interested in joining up with CHARGE, let us know!

T4America’s long-standing position has been that transportation electrification is essential but insufficient to meeting our GHG reduction goals. Our signature report Driving Down Emissions lays out the strategies we need to implement in order to reduce emissions through provision of more transportation and housing options, which not only results in fewer emissions but economic, environmental and equity benefits as well.

We can’t expect electrification to solve our climate woes. However, the way we electrify will impact our ability to implement smart growth strategies, and it will influence job creation, equity and environmental impacts beyond the climate. That’s why we’ve decided to start weighing in on the electric vehicle transition.

There are three key strategies for electrifying America’s transportation system in a way that supports smart growth and transportation options and ensures we get the most out of taxpayer investments.

1. Put public transit operations first

We know that one of the best ways to reduce emissions is to move more trips from driving to public transit. Improving public transit to attract more riders to this affordable option better serves lower income families and BIPOC communities, supports healthier walkable development, and requires less road space.

Electrifying public transit also has great benefits including cleaner air in our cities and the potential to reduce transit operating costs. But we need to make sure that the higher upfront cost of electric buses in no way hampers our efforts to improve public transit service. An electric bus can only significantly reduce emissions if people choose to ride it.

By engaging with our electrification advocate allies, we’ve been able to establish public transit service as the first priority in fighting GHG emission from transportation, immediately followed by electrification.

2. Integrate electric options and EV charging into communities

*Tesla charging station near Miner Street in Idaho Springs, CO. Publicly available EV chargers near business districts benefit drivers and local business owners.*

People deserve access to convenient modes of transportation outside of car travel, but the reality is a lot of folks will continue to rely on cars thanks to the current design of our cities. To reduce emissions, we need to electrify our vehicles and figure out where people will charge them. For people who own their own home with a dedicated parking spot, it’s relatively easy to just charge overnight in your driveway or garage. But for many folks in apartments, there may be no dedicated parking, or no charging available in the parking provided. EV users also need charging options when they take a road trip beyond the range of their vehicle.

The infrastructure law is working to address this with lots of investment in public charging. We can create a charging network that supports smart growth, economic development, and even transportation options other than driving. How?

The first thing to consider is the age-old smart growth strategy of co-location, in other words, putting things near each other. Charging an EV takes longer than gassing up an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle–anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple hours depending on the type of charger and the charge needed. The car occupants are going to want something to do, and the community where the charger is, be it urban or rural, has the opportunity to serve customers if they can walk to local businesses. The administration should invest in chargers in disadvantaged communities where they can support economic development.

We also need to think about how our communities are shaped by the shift to EVs and what kind of transportation options people have in denser urban areas where dedicated parking (and the easy charging that goes along with it) is less common. These are the kinds of neighborhoods where walking, biking and public transit are more viable, so we want to support and encourage them. We need to make sure public charging is available for apartment dwelling car-owners. Better yet, we can get more bang-for-the-buck supporting fleet vehicles–e.g. carshare vehicles, municipal fleets, and corporate fleets that see more use and, in the case of carshare, provide a mobility option for more people while supporting a low-car lifestyle.

We also can’t forget electric bikes, a clean, healthy and affordable mobility option that has been rapidly gaining traction in many communities nationally and worldwide. We can support continued growth in electric bikes with better bike infrastructure, secure bike parking, charging opportunities, and purchase incentives. We also need to make sure that car chargers aren’t located at the curb in such a way that precludes future bike lanes or bus lanes.

3. Clean up the trucks and fleets

As the government supports the shift to electric vehicles, we need to make sure that we get the most for our tax dollars. Trucks are a large source of emissions, and an area where more support is needed to make the transition to electric (and in some cases hydrogen) vehicles. We can bolster the economy and create good-paying jobs by focusing this support on domestic manufacturing of electric trucks and conversions in places where improved air quality can benefit frontline communities such as adjacent to heavily-polluted ports. As mentioned above, investing in fleets and carshare before personal cars will support more emissions reductions, and be more in line with a parallel smart growth strategy.

It’s true that transportation electrification can’t be the sole answer to our climate crisis. But it’s clear that EVs are part of the answer, and the way we electrify matters. By taking into account these three strategies, decision makers can make electrification a valuable part of our climate solution.

Rules for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program are currently open to public comment. This program can help shape our nation’s approach to electrification. Learn more about the program and how to submit comments here.

After your next trip, bring back a fresh perspective on transportation

pedestrian walks under bridge rolling a suitcase

Visiting communities other than our own can remind us to envision more for transportation in our own communities. This is especially important now, with so much infrastructure funding starting to flow that could actually make these visions reality.

When people travel, they shed routines and become open to new experiences. They’re likely to use various modes of transportation from carshare services and bike rentals to exploring the nearby environment on foot. For me, doing so gives me a more complete experience of the place I am visiting, and I often learn something.

For example, I recently visited a U.S. city which has made major strides to improve its transit and biking infrastructure. To get around, my family took advantage of a great new train line and enjoyed biking on separated paths. But my kids were quite frightened when we struggled to make it across a gap in the bike network the day we rented bikes. In addition, two of my children were very nearly hit by a right-turn-on-red driver speeding through the right-turn-only slip lane and failing to stop on time as we crossed a busy arterial road with the walk signal and the right-of-way. I was impressed by some of the improvements, but appalled by the gaps in networks, which mostly existed on dangerously fast arterial streets with little improvement to make them safer for people outside of cars.

I’m not naming the city in question because that’s not the point. Instead I want to emphasize that the perspective of the outsider, or visitor, is so valuable in helping us to see the infrastructure of our own communities with fresh eyes and fresh perspectives.

So how can you get this sort of new or fresh perspective on the transportation options and infrastructure in your community? You might think about how a newcomer navigates your community, or even someone with different physical abilities or a different race. How would a blind person or someone in a wheelchair navigate this intersection? A child on a scooter? Do wide streets without adequate crossings result in speeding or jaywalking? Does enforcement on those streets fall disproportionately on Black community members?

There are great examples of people doing exactly this all over social media. Vignesh Swaminathan (or Mr. Barricade, as he’s known on social media), who joined us at Smart Growth America’s Equity Summit last January, uses Tiktok to explain how street design can better meet the needs of all members of the community.

@mrbarricade
#accessibility is the most important part of #urbandesign if we build for folks in #wheelchairs it works for everyone. #freight #truckers #protectedbikelanes #civilengineering #trafficengineering #urbanplanning #equity #inequity #roadwaysafety #bikelanes #uber #dropoff #sanjose #quickbuild #ada #curbramp #curbs #loading
♬ original sound – MrBarricade

When you try to take on the perspective of someone different than you, or a visitor or tourist perhaps, and see your community with new eyes, you may see some of your successes (as Swaminathan often does), but you may also see the gaps in the network, confusing intersections and missing or confusing wayfinding. These are real barriers for your neighbors who may be thinking of trying out transit, biking or walking for the first time in their and your own community and people who are already get around in those ways. Maybe it renews your outrage at arterial streets that still lack safe bike infrastructure and safe pedestrian crossings, the longstanding gaps in the bike network, and the infrequent transit service.

Seeing your community’s infrastructure with this sort of “beginner’s mind” can help you better see how the status quo is failing to serve us. We’ve become so used to our transportation system being dangerous, inconvenient and expensive, that sometimes that terrible reality just fades into the background. But let’s face it. Aliens from outer space would give America’s transportation infrastructure a D- at best, and so would visitors, outsiders, and a lot of people living in the community that might be getting overlooked.

Try looking at your own community anew. If you travel, bring that fresh perspective back home and challenge the status quo in your own community. Take a walk audit. Talk to visitors about what they see. Reach out to decision makers to fill safety gaps, and stay wise to the strategies they use to deter change. Use our guide to implementation of the infrastructure law to think about how the infrastructure law’s historic funding can be spent to make transportation systems more accessible, safe, and intuitive.

We’re fighting a long fight and making incremental progress, but let’s not let go of making our transportation system truly great. We should imagine and fight for a time when the visiting alien analogy no longer works. It no longer works because we’ve built a transportation system that is so safe and sensible that anyone would be able to navigate it safely, without so much as a second thought.

When gas prices rise, choice matters

Chevron gas station with gas prices ranging from $6.39 to $6.69

High gas prices put pressure on many Americans’ finances. Unfortunately, the cost of gas depends on a variety of factors, and there’s no silver bullet. Focusing on ineffective short-term solutions can often distract from the long-term problem: when the places we live are designed only for car travel (and longer trips), Americans are forced to pay the cost.

Gas prices have been rising throughout the year, nearing an all-time inflation-adjusted US high. Millions of Americans who rely on a vehicle for essential trips also may depend on low gas prices to make ends meet. Under pressure, state and federal legislators are trying to find ways to drive down the price, including passing gas tax holidays and proposing a federal price gouging bill. However, a variety of factors influence gas prices, and these legislative efforts have little chance of stemming the tide. Gas tax holidays are a particularly shortsighted choice. They threaten funding for needed infrastructure projects, many of which could ultimately alleviate pain at the pump.

Electric vehicles can’t be the sole answer to this problem either, because the issues that come up when people have to drive everywhere, even for the shortest trips, aren’t limited to the cost of fuel. All that driving takes up valuable time. Cars take up space on the road, which turns into traffic, making travel last even longer. It’s expensive to purchase and maintain a car, and when people have to own cars to travel, those who can’t afford one or are unable to drive one are left stranded. (We wrote about some of these issues in our report Driving Down Emissions.)

Every presidential candidate's climate and transportation plan: replace all cars on the road with EVs, akacleaner congestion

Regardless of the cost of gas, it’s never been cheap or convenient to rely solely on driving for daily travel. Whether electric or gas-powered, cars are expensive, and Americans have to drive them further than ever just to access their daily needs—Americans in the biggest metro areas are driving 20 percent more per day than three decades ago.

While gas tax holidays will fail to provide significant relief (and cut revenues for roads and bridges in the process), there are enough other organizations and economists and elected leaders trying to figure out short-term solutions for these historically high prices. We’re taking the long view.

Last year’s infrastructure law, a historic investment in our nation’s transportation system, could provide longer lasting solutions for struggling travelers who need to save time and money at the pump.

The infrastructure law made new funds available to improve transit speeds and access, reconnect communities separated by dangerous infrastructure, and design safer and more active streets. We’ve written before about how these changes can enhance equity and improve climate outcomes, but there’s another benefit we might not bring up enough: more options mean more ways for travelers to save on transportation.

When people live in walkable, multimodal places (of nearly any size) where destinations are located closer together, they can walk, roll, or take the bus to get to work, school, and the grocery store. As gas prices rose, people in these sorts of places, whether affluent or lower-income, were fortunate enough to be able to take much shorter trips by car or switch to other modes of travel. In doing so, they avoided some of the rising cost of car travel, even if they occasionally drove.

Me when gas prices are low vs Me when gas prices are high pic.twitter.com/bFwCft4e89
— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 7, 2022

After 2008, the last time gas prices rose, we had a similar opportunity to make lasting changes to our infrastructure. Demand rose for alternative modes of travel, especially in areas that already had long-established alternate options. If we had invested in multimodal transportation, we’d be in a very different situation today. But we didn’t—and this is where we ended up.

Because much of the funding in the infrastructure law is flexible, we can use it to give travelers more choices. Or we can further entrench ourselves in a system that requires more driving, more pollution, and more unexpected costs. Those choices will be up to states and metro areas as they decide how to invest these funds.

To really address the climbing cost of car travel, state DOTs and metro areas need to make sound infrastructure investments. If they merely use the infrastructure law to supercharge their existing work to prioritize speedy, long-distance travel at the expense of shorter trips via a range of modes, we’ll be right back in this mess the next time gas prices rise. When that time comes, we’ll know who deserves at least some of the blame.

How local governments can overcome delay and obstruction (part two)

protected bike path filled with cyclists

Local government practitioners are often highly motivated to invest in safer street designs. But they soon encounter insurmountable barriers from the state DOT, which holds the purse strings, owns the roads and highways that also serve as local streets, and interprets federal rules in ways that elevate their priorities and push safety down the list. Here are some ways for local elected officials and municipal staff to break through those barriers.

In the first installment of this series, we explored ways local advocates can overcome some of the barriers frequently thrown up by local government practitioners focused on preserving the status quo. But in many places, the local elected leaders or practitioners want to do the right thing but are stymied by state DOTs and even federal regulations.

Here are some of the obstructions that local planners and engineers often encounter with their state DOT and even federal agencies like the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and how they can respond to move toward real solutions that go beyond the status quo of dangerous fast streets that fail to prioritize and accommodate people walking, biking and riding public transit.

1) “We allow plenty of innovative designs, but federal rules don’t allow what you’ve submitted.”

State DOTs often (and often incorrectly) interpret federal rules in ways that make it more difficult for local jurisdictions to use federal funding. There are two steps to overcoming this issue. First, ask the state DOT rep to show you the language in federal code that prohibits your proposed design. Both US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations are available online as are most state codes, so you can look at what they send and see if the code actually says what they say it says. (Or ask an outside expert to weigh in.)

If they do produce language, but the interpretation is questionable, you can start thinking about going above them. If this is a state DOT engineer’s interpretation, ask the agency’s policy team and/or legal team to provide an opinion on interpretation. Even if this doesn’t change the state DOT stance, it will shine light on the agency’s thinking (and if state rules are influencing the interpretation), thus informing future conversations.

If the state DOT stance hasn’t changed to your satisfaction, you can choose to involve FHWA. Ask for a joint meeting with the state DOT rep and your local FHWA regional representative. (As we noted in the first post about localities, states very often claim things about federal standards that are patently untrue.) It can also be productive and helpful to develop a relationship with someone in the national USDOT office.

While these steps can help get your project done, it still may involve additional work and expense like applying for exceptions. For example, state standards often require car lanes to be 11 feet wide or more, even though 10-foot lanes are often adequate and can even help slow traffic, making a road safer. If engineers have to file for an exception every time they need to shrink the lanes to fit in bike lanes or sidewalks, they are in effect being punished for doing the right thing.

When you explain the burden of applying for exceptions, the state agency may say:

2) “We can provide you with examples of best practices for how to apply for exceptions and/or make designs comply with unwieldy requirements.”

The main counter argument here is that the fact that just because some people somewhere figured it out does not mean that it is easy for others to do so. And it is usually very hard.

That point aside, standards should be flexible enough to allow slow-speed designs by right, and should catch up to the most innovative designs for safe and protected bike and pedestrian infrastructure, so that practitioners doing the best designs aren’t forced to take extra steps. The safest, best designs should face the least bureaucratic obstruction, not the most. Wider lanes and designs that prioritize speed first should require the exceptions—if at all—not the other way around.

So they say…

3) “We can publish guidance explaining why people can use the street design element you are proposing.”

This of course does very little to defray the difficulty and expense of having to jump through hoops to do the right thing. Doing the right thing should be easier and the default way of operating, rather than the exception.

When you explain the cost and difficulty of applying for exceptions, this often leads back in a circle to 1) but with the addition of:

4) “Oh, we can’t afford to do that.”

Again, ask them to show you where in the rules and regulations it is written that what you are proposing is not allowed. Ask them to cite the specific text and provide links to its location. Put the burden on them to show their work in a way that can be examined. This is a step where involving USDOT or a local FHWA office in the discussion may again become important, and where engaging not just the local office, but the national office (or outside experts or advocates like T4America) may be relevant.

This could be a good time to go above the staff to the governor who is ultimately their boss, especially if they are claiming that funding is part of the issue. Your city council members or mayor may want to be a part of that conversation. Elected leaders determine budgets based on what they see, and can redirect the process and/or adjust the budget in future cycles.

We shouldn’t allow red-tape, real or imagined, to stop us from building the best possible transportation networks that fully serve everyone in our communities. Hopefully this short series will help everyone sharpen their scissors. Good luck to us all!

Want to see how advocates can overcome delay and obstruction? Visit part one of this series for more useful tips.

How advocates can overcome delay and obstruction (part one)

Advocate holding a sign that says "Make streets safe for all"

Activist holding a sign that says "Make streets safe for all" — *Fickr photo by Ted Eytan*

Local advocates fighting for safe streets and expanded transportation options will often struggle to make progress in places because transportation planners and engineers are entrenched in old ways of doing things. We’ve identified some patterns in the ways the establishment can block reforms and offer suggested ways to overcome those obstructions.

If you’re a local transportation advocate, you’ve probably tried to advocate for change with your local government only to find that you seem to be getting nowhere. Transportation policy is full of acronyms and layers of government that can make it hard to figure out who is responsible for what, and some local agency officials use their insider knowledge to stymie real debate and maintain the status quo. And overall, the world of transportation planning and engineering is like a massive, slow-moving ship with a tiny rudder.

Changing deeply ingrained practices is an uphill battle, and this is why outdated standards and measures and models from decades ago continue to guide how we design and build our transportation networks. (For an incredible look behind the curtain on how transportation agencies operate with some suggestions for breaking through, do not miss Chuck Marohn’s terrific book Confessions of a Recovering Engineer.)

As an advocate, you may find yourself walking away empty handed multiple times from conversations you were sure would generate some progress, and many status quo purveyors have several ways to divert the conversation, each time setting back progress for months or more. This process can be so frustrating that some advocates have resorted to making necessary changes themselves, as Crosswalk Collective L.A. did when the city failed to add crosswalks, but we can’t always roll up our sleeves and paint our needs into reality.

Here are some things we have heard from local public agency staff about transportation reform proposals that have the potential to block progress, and some ways you can respond to push forward–and hopefully knock down multiple roadblocks at a time.

1) “Good news! We’re already doing that.”

The best way to respond to those who think they’re already doing the good stuff is to just point to the outcomes. For example, how many people have been hurt or killed in collisions on the agency’s dangerous streets? This is one reason why one of our leading messages on the last Dangerous by Design report about pedestrian safety was so simple—by every single measure that matters, our current strategy to improve safety is a total and complete failure.

Our current approach is addressing the rising number of people struck and killed while walking has been a total failure. It needs to be reconsidered or dropped altogether.

How many people are walking and biking? Rather than seeing low walking and biking rates as a vindication of ignoring these needs, consider what it says about the public’s view of the streets. Can we consider the status quo successful if few feel safe enough to use them despite polling showing that people want to walk and bike, while other communities that have much higher shares of people walking or biking?

Are the outcomes in line with stated city goals? Often there may be a comprehensive or transportation master plan with goals for percentage of trips taken by walking, biking, transit, or other active modes. You can ask the practitioner to show how the project’s outcomes serve stated goals, but it may be helpful to have examples in your back pocket.

2) “The [local, state or federal] rules prevent us from doing that.”

Don’t take them at their word. Ask them to show you where in the rules and regulations it is written that what you are proposing is not allowed. Ask them to cite the specific text and provide links to its location. As one example, city and state traffic engineers (still!) routinely claim that they “have to” prioritize vehicle level of service on street projects (often at the expense of safety), but this is patently untrue. Back in 2016, FHWA took the significant step of sending a letter to make this abundantly clear, which we wrote about at the time:

FHWA just gave the green light to localities that want to implement a complete streets approach. By making clear that there is zero federal requirement to use level of service (and that there never has been), FHWA is implying that transportation agencies should consider more than just traffic speeds when planning street projects.

Both US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations are available online as are most state codes, so you can look at what they send and see if the code says what they say it says. However, the trick here is that they might not even know, and/or, when they look it up, they may find out the rules / data / best practices don’t say what they think they say. They may be basing their assumptions on rules or guidance that has since been updated. Or they are making claims that they know are hard for everyday citizens to refute. Put the burden on them to do the research and back up their claims.

(Sometimes state or federal rules really are an issue. Stay tuned for part two of this series on how you can help your local government overcome this barrier if it is real.)

3) “We don’t have the budget for that.”

Yes, but how was the budget created? What were the core assumptions? What was the stated purpose of the project from day one? Was the project “scoped” before the full range of needs were ever considered?

Often you will find that transportation project planners and engineers set the budget for a project based on a design for cars and trucks before they ever take into account non-driving modes. After they’ve set the budget, they hear from community members that they want changes, and act as if there is nothing they can do—changes would only add to the cost which would exceed the budget.

Our colleagues at Smart Growth America wrote about the importance of getting project “scopes” right a few years ago in a longer series about how state DOTs so often are asking the wrong questions, and how they can do better:

One of the biggest barriers to practical solutions is the practice of defining the need for a project as a specific improvement (ex. add a turn lane) instead of a problem to be solved (i.e. northbound backups at Second and Main during the afternoon rush). And when a Purpose and Need statement goes so far as to include a specific approach (add the turn lane), then all other features—sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, or bicycle facilities—become “add-ons” or “amenities” which are first to get scrapped when confronted with funding constraints. Starting with a clear definition of the problem rather than a specific improvement can make such “amenities” central components of a future project and open the door to more inexpensive solutions (like retiming traffic lights).

You can point out this flaw in their phasing and indicate to them that they could have designed and budgeted the project for all modes in the first place. We find the budget for whatever our real priorities are. Safety and equity should not need a separate funding pot. Put the failure to budget for the whole project on them. This could be a good time to go above staff to local elected officials who are their bosses. Elected leaders determine budgets based on what they see, and can redirect the process and/or adjust the budget in future cycles.

4) “Yes, great idea! We’ll add it to the queue.”

A “yes” can sometimes just be a way for an agency to get you off their back while burying a task or project behind their own priorities and goals. Counter it by asking how the queue works. Where is the service level agreement? When will it be done? If it’s a priority list, how are projects prioritized? How and when is the list reconsidered? What projects have guaranteed funding and which projects are awaiting future funding?

Sometimes local government practitioners are highly motivated to invest in safer street designs but encounter barriers in their dealings with the state DOT.

Want to learn how local governments can break through these barriers? Visit part two of our series for more useful tips!

The infrastructure law and boosting access to jobs and services

a farmers market filled with pedestrians

The ultimate point of transportation spending should be to connect people to jobs and services. But that’s not what we primarily use as a measure of success and the new infrastructure law maintains the status quo of focusing on moving vehicles quickly as a (poor) proxy for access. This means that, absent some changes that USDOT can still make, states and communities will need to make the most of the flexibilities within the infrastructure law to advance multimodal access to jobs and services.

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

For decades, America has failed to accomplish the most foundational transportation policy goal: moving people (and goods) from one place to another. As it stands today, too many people are driving too far to reach jobs and essential services like schools or fresh food because we fail to measure access and all of our policies and measures incentivize speed of travel. American cities largely build infrastructure to move vehicles as far as possible, as fast as possible. Instead, we ought to measure success as “access.”¹ At a base level, this just involves finding ways to measure the jobs and services people can access within a certain distance by any mode. And just as crucially, this approach isn’t just limited to measuring vehicles and considers all of the members of a community, regardless of how they get around or any limits to their mobility.

Prioritizing access to destinations in transportation planning will help reduce emissions, make our roads safer, promote public health through more walking, biking or rolling, connect more people to opportunity, and get more for our infrastructure dollars. However, despite the influx of cash and promises of innovation brought on by the 2021 infrastructure law, its programs remain painfully status-quo in their focus on vehicular movement and their lack of accountability. But even with that said, the law’s broad flexibility still allows state and local agencies that want to prioritize access to do so through the range of programs at their disposal.

What’s in the law?

Within the infrastructure law, there’s one dedicated program that directly addresses access to jobs and services in a significant way: USDOT will use the Transportation Access Pilot Program to work with a select number of states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to measure the potential changes in accessibility to jobs and services for a wide spectrum of people and goods from transportation investments.² This is a good starting point, and T4America strongly encourages USDOT to maximize the opportunities from this program to create a cultural shift in transportation planning and decision-making toward focusing on access.

But this point should be made very clearly: Special programs or funds are NOT required to start prioritizing and improving access.

Nearly every single other large flexible formula program permits states, MPOs and localities to shift their emphasis toward improving access and make the best use of the available funding toward this end. If your state or agency plans to make this a priority, then all of your very flexible funding should be used to support that priority.³

The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) sets aside 10 percent of a state’s second biggest pot of funding (The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program) for projects that enable accessibility through modes other than driving. The Safe Routes to School program is designed to boost access to public primary and secondary schools (and can be funded through the flexibility provided in the core highway formula programs like NHPP, STBG, HSIP, CRP, CMAQ). The Reconnecting Communities Pilot and Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment competitive grant programs are both valuable resources that can be used to bring multimodal accessibility to areas fractured by divisive or vehicle-dependent infrastructure.

Since the formula-based programs below are not competitive, they are perhaps the best opportunities for states, MPOs and local governments to prioritize accessibility. Until USDOT makes some fundamental shifts away from the counterproductive measures that they currently use to measure success on specific projects, the onus will be on these state and local agencies to maximize these programs to improve access.

Formula programs

Program	Authorized funding	Can be used for:	Should be used to:
Complete Streets set-aside	Minimum 2.5% of state and MPO apportionments	Multimodal streets and designated networks for active transportation (walking, cycling).	Directly and comprehensively connect people with jobs, schools, housing, healthcare, childcare and community centers.
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)	$7.2 billion over five years. (10% of each state’s Surface Transportation Block Grant program funds)	Recreational trails, bike/ped projects, micromobility, and other types of transportation alternatives.	Expand and make accessible active transportation and micromobility networks centered around essential and popular destinations and integrate them with public transit.
Safe Routes to School	Minimum $1 million apportionment to states (subject to appropriations), funding based on enrollment numbers for primary and secondary schools. States can leverage core highway formula funds to fund the program.	Projects that enhance students’ ability to walk and bike to school.	Connect schools with residential areas and community centers with active transportation networks.
Carbon Reduction Program	$6.4 billion	Planning, designing, and building on- and off-road active transportation facilities; roadway right-of-way improvements.	Fund complete street designs that allow communities to access essential and popular destinations and integrate into public transit.
Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT)	$7.3 billion (formula grant portion)	Extreme weather resilience and emergency response infrastructure.	Provide evacuation and recovery mobility to all road users. Build biking, walking, and rolling infrastructure into all resiliency plans and evacuation routes.
Bridge Formula Program	$26.5 billion	Replacing, rehabilitating, preserving, protecting, and construction highway and off-network bridges.	Make sure that every bridge repaired under this program includes active transportation infrastructure, not just to check a box, but to connect to adjacent active transportation networks.

Competitive grant programs

The following programs are competitively funded (discretionary). Winning these grants is tied to strong local matching funds (at 20–50 percent of the project cost).

Program	Authorized funding	Can be used for:	Should be used to:
Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program	$200 million annually	Planning and construction grants to reconnect communities divided by viaducts, highways or other principal arterials. (Highway teardowns, and other types of projects.)	Make improving access the primary consideration as connections are rebuilt between communities, improve active transportation and transit access.
Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program	$200 million annually, subject to appropriations	Active transportation projects and planning grants that build upon a local/regional/state network.	Focus networks around essential and popular community destinations and integrate them with transit facilities.
Transportation Access Pilot Program	No specified amount, funded by USDOT’s operating budget	Developing an accessibility data set, making that data set available, and establishing evaluation measures for states, MPOs and regional transportation organizations.	Set accessibility measures centered around equitable outcomes.
Carbon Reduction Program	$6.4 billion	Planning, designing, and building on- and off-road active transportation facilities; roadway right-of-way improvements.	Fund complete street designs that allow communities to access essential and popular destinations and integrate into public transit.
Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT)	$7.3 billion (formula grant portion)	Extreme weather resilience and emergency response infrastructure.	Provide evacuation and recovery mobility to all road users. Build biking, walking, and rolling infrastructure into all resiliency plans and evacuation routes.
Bridge Formula Program	$26.5 billion	Replacing, rehabilitating, preserving, protecting, and construction highway and off-network bridges.	Make sure that every bridge repaired under this program includes active transportation infrastructure, not just to check a box, but to connect to adjacent active transportation networks.

Outside of its funding streams, the infrastructure law introduces several policy changes that positively impact accessibility within existing laws. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan program now more explicitly calls for the inclusion of projects that are within walking distance and are accessible to public transit systems. The State and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Act now calls for statewide and metropolitan agencies to coordinate transportation, housing, and economic development within their federally mandated plans.

What can the administration do to improve access?

The most important thing the administration needs to do on this count is to repeal their guidance for the value of time, which every agency uses to evaluate most transportation projects. This outdated measure incorrectly assumes that increased traffic speeds lead to time savings, when in fact it mostly just incentivizes sprawling development that spreads people and destinations apart, negating time savings as travel distances grow and grow. Instead, the administration should push for the adoption of data-driven accessibility-focused measures. We dive deep into this specific measure and offer four concrete recommendations for USDOT to follow in our blog post here.

Because Congress chose to make the new $3.2 billion Rural Surface Transportation program a competitive grant program, USDOT can shape this program to prioritize rural projects that actually improve access for more people rather than just the speed of travel for some people driving. This new program is designed to increase connectivity, improve safety, and facilitate the movement of goods and people, but many state DOTs just put forward simple highway expansion projects for rural areas that fail to measurably improve access in those communities. Rural communities deserve a better approach, as we’ve written. USDOT’s guidance for these rural competitive grants should require a multimodal approach and define connectivity, safety/reliability, economic growth and quality of life for drivers and nondrivers alike.

The administration can also revise the Eligibility of Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Under Federal Transit Law to allow for bikeshare eligibility (and all shared micromobility for that matter) within the Section 5311 (rural transportation) program. While there are significant transit needs in rural communities, we should allow rural communities to decide for themselves about the best ways to improve access within their communities.

How can the new money advance our goals?

Climate

Assessing new transportation projects based on their accessibility benefits, rather than by travel time or level of service, could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.⁴ Today’s predominant practices exacerbate sprawl and lead to longer trips overall, which is directly tied to increasing emissions. And while most road expansion projects are justified because of their supposed ability to reduce congestion and because of improvements to the “value of time” noted above, in the end they actually just produce more congestion on our roads. Since transportation and land use are so interconnected, integrating transportation and land use measures that combat sprawl and reduce vehicle miles traveled (and emissions) requires assessing projects for their effects on accessibility.

Equity

More often than not, disadvantaged communities bear the brunt of the safety and climate issues brought about by our focus on vehicle speed. As we noted in our post on the value of time measure above, “a highway that destroys a community (see I-49 in Shreveport) is easily justified on the grounds of time savings, even if locals lose 15 minutes having to walk out of their way to cross a now-dangerous street or can no longer walk to their destination at all because a new highway blocks their path. The impact to their time is literally never considered as part of the process of developing such a project.” This is just one example of how focusing instead on access would improve outcomes for more people, especially those who are most harmed by today’s current practices. Our focus should be on bringing more jobs and essential services within reach to those disadvantaged by today’s practices.

So what?

As is the case with many of our other goals, it’s now up to the state, regional or local governments receiving this funding to use it responsibly and to be held accountable for their projects. And there’s no reason why we can’t start to pivot to measuring access instead of leaning on outdated 1950s measures like vehicle speed. With the amount of data currently available that can be used to measure the accessibility benefits of projects, there is no excuse not to start transitioning toward this goal as our guiding light for transportation decisions. And local advocates should start pushing their agencies in this direction.

Don’t blame the snow, blame our roads: Why it’s so difficult to travel in winter weather

Pedestrians attempt to cross the street next to a pile of snow blocking a one-way lane

Every year, winter storms highlight the failings of our car-first approach to infrastructure. And as climate change worsens, the need for change intensifies. Cities and states must do more to make sure people are able to access the goods and services they need regardless of weather conditions.

During winter storms, millions have no choice but to to drive in dangerous conditions because they have no other, or no safer, option. Without a better way to get to work, purchase food, or access other necessary resources, people must drive in bad weather or in sloppy road conditions, a factor in nearly half a million crashes and more than 2,000 deaths on our roadways every winter. Millions more get stuck because sidewalks, steps, and crosswalks are the last places to get cleared of snow.

People who live in rural areas experience this problem severely, as increasing distances from work, school, and services and the lack of other transportation options requires them to drive further to access what they need. In bad weather, rural residents can find themselves driving in particularly treacherous conditions on roads often overlooked in favor of busier interstates or nearby highways or roads in need of repair. Those without cars, or without key winter weather features like four-wheel drive, can be completely cut off from the goods and services they need.

And that brings us to the additional risk, beyond crashing, that people face in winter weather conditions: getting trapped, as was the case in early January when Virginia-area commuters found themselves nearly stationary on I-95 for over 24 hours. Other high profile incidents occurred in Atlanta, Texas, Raleigh, even Buffalo (even earlier this week abroad in Greece and Turkey). In these severe examples of the danger of winter travel, the state DOTs described the difficulty of keeping up with the intense snowfall and icy conditions. As climate change worsens, DOTs will find it increasingly difficult to prepare for snow and manage snow removal, especially if roadways continue to widen and destinations continue to spread further apart.

Places with good public transit and ample sidewalks well connected to destinations are more resilient when snow starts to fall, as residents have other options to avoid risky car travel. But even then, those municipalities tend to prioritize car travel at the expense of these other forms of transport, so necessary snow removal for sidewalks, bus routes, and bike lanes is often delayed or entirely forgotten while high-speed, high-volume roadways are always taken care of first. (Or in the case of most cities, sidewalk snow removal is left entirely up to residents, something that some cities are reconsidering.)

Snow does help illuminate how existing road space could be reallocated, showing how much road space is often devoted to vehicles unnecessarily, instead of making walking and biking safer. The photo on the left shows the typical layout of an intersection in Petworth, Washington, DC. On the right, a second photo shows how much space could be devoted to wider sidewalks and safer crossings without affecting vehicle movement. Photos courtesy of *Steve Davis*.

Even when bike lanes and sidewalks get snow removal treatment in communities (i.e. using traditional plows to clear protected bike lanes and bus stop sidewalk extensions), there is an inherent risk of the infrastructure being damaged. By ignoring these other modes of transport and failing to maintain them properly, even multimodal cities can ultimately force more drivers onto dangerous roads as residents lose their access to safer options.

It goes beyond bike lanes and bus routes. Many bus stops lack shelters, forcing people waiting for their bus to stand in the storm. Shelters that do exist aren’t prioritized for snow removal, and leaving removal up to third parties can further complicate the process. In DC, for example, the bus shelter advertising concessionaire is supposed to clear the shelters, meaning the city has to contact a third party to get the snow removed. This makes removal inconsistent, so it’s more difficult for bus riders to count on their stop being well-maintained.

Newer modes in cities, like bikeshare and micromobility systems, face their own challenges in winter weather. Bikeshare stations and other micromobility vehicles can be buried in snow from snow plows and sidewalk snow clearing efforts—not to mention that when bikeshare stations run on solar power, their solar panels have to be kept clear from snow as well.

Snowy sidewalks are a constant dilemma, as many municipalities leave snow removal on public sidewalks up to the adjacent residences, leading to patchwork removal at best. This is a particular problem for people who use wheelchairs, walkers, or strollers, who rely on well-maintained sidewalks to get around.

The problems revealed by snowfall aren’t isolated to severe weather conditions. Year round, speedy car travel is prioritized over the safety of drivers and pedestrians. People who cannot drive have few other options for travel, and those that can drive are finding themselves driving more and more, on roadways in need of attention and repair. Climate resilience is necessary outside of winter months as well. In places facing extreme heat, providing shade could be an important way to serve the people who aren’t in personal vehicles.

To tackle these concerns, states and municipalities must prioritize, both in their investments and operations, other forms of transportation beyond car travel, so that more people can travel safely and conveniently to access goods and services in dangerous weather. They also need to address land use, as sprawl continues to pull people further away from the services they need, lengthening trips at the same time that climate change worsens travel conditions for everyone.

How TIGER/BUILD can help improve the federal transportation program

The third and final part of our analysis of 10 years of awarding transportation funds competitively through the TIGER/BUILD program illuminates three simple principles that should help guide reform of the federal transportation system.

Read the first two posts in the series (part one, part two) or download the full analysis.

The federal transportation program is in need of a major overhaul. America today is very different than the America of the 1920s. The interstate highway system as envisioned is now complete, new technology is changing the way people move almost daily, there is far greater awareness of the social impacts of car-focused transportation, and climate change is an urgent threat and transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

But the most glaring shortcoming is the total absence of a broader vision of what today’s program should accomplish tomorrow. While Congress has made small tweaks here and there over last few decades, the program as a whole largely fails to meet the needs of the modern day and the basic goal of the program is not clear. Its initial purpose was to build out the interstate system but that has been completed. What now? Is the purpose to keep the current system in a state of good repair? Reduce fatalities on our roadways by half? Ensure that Americans have access to the majority of regional jobs by car and transit?

If we can’t answer these questions of vision, goals, or purpose—if we don’t know why we are spending billions of dollars—it is hard to believe we will accomplish much of anything. Yet Congress is poised to come back to taxpayers and ask for more money, just to accomplish more of the same.

How can this 10-year experiment with awarding a small slice of federal transportation funds competitively to the best possible projects across a range of modes help guide the debate over how to reform the federal transportation program at large? As lawmakers move toward reauthorizing the long-term federal transportation law in 2020, here are three lessons we’ve learned from 10 years of TIGER/BUILD that we could apply to the broader federal program.

Competition for limited funds results in better projects

Competition for funding helps improve projects. The introduction of a flexible, competitive program has pushed applicants to go further, to dream big, collaborate effectively, and design better projects that meet a community’s needs. There are a handful of projects that failed to win funding in one year and came back in another with a stronger application and a recalibrated project and won funding. The BUILD program proves what’s possible when we focus on funding the best possible projects instead of relying on blind formulas to dispense money automatically.

Make funds directly available to local communities

Local governments are generally more in tune with community needs and the land-use implications of transportation projects than statewide entities. The BUILD program has given locals a much needed source of direct federal funding that should be emulated in the broader federal transportation program.

As our colleagues at Smart Growth America have shown, most state departments of transportation (DOTs) were initially created solely to build highways and have that DNA embedded deep in their culture and practice. And they don’t always share the same priorities of their local communities when it comes to choosing how to disburse the funding. Giving locals more of a say with how funds should be spent within their borders results in a transportation system that’s far more responsive to the real needs at a local level.

Incentivize transportation choice

The modern federal transportation program was designed to build the interstate highway system. Today, that system is complete but like a ship with a stuck rudder, federal policy lacks clear new direction and continues to focus primarily on doing the same thing: building roads. The result is a national transportation system that is heavily skewed toward private vehicle travel, often jeopardizing the safety of people walking, biking, and taking transit. But 10 years of BUILD have shown that there is great demand for multimodal infrastructure.

There’s no reason that the federal government should pay for a greater share of a road project than that of a transit project. Federal policy currently stipulates an 80 percent share for roads but a much lower amount for transit—usually around 50 percent. And when it comes to overall funding levels, again, there is no reason we should we should prioritize roads over other transportation options. If anything, transit projects should be prioritized in light of the great demand for more transportation choices, rising inequality, and climate change. The federal program should create more parity between the modes in terms of federal match and the overall funding levels.

Congress has a vital role in BUILD’s future

The greatest strengths of this program have always been found in the numerous ways it is different from other federal transportation funding programs. Over the past decade it has funded numerous projects that have stimulated investment in communities big and small across the country, many of which would have never happened without it. It hypothesized and tested a new model of funding smart projects: funds given directly, allowing more flexibility and innovation in approach, and encouraging teams of multiple partners on complex projects.

While the program still has the potential to continue to fund great projects, it will only do so if Congress stays diligent and ensures that USDOT executes the program as intended.

TIGER is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a roads program, a rural funding program, or just another vehicle for funneling more money without any accountability to state DOTs. It is wildly popular because it is multimodal, advances projects in urban and rural communities alike, funds projects that don’t easily fit in today’s narrowly defined federal funding silos, and is open to any public entity.

We should keep it that way.

Download the full analysis here

Sean Doyle was the primary author of this report for Transportation for America, with contributions from Beth Osborne, Scott Goldstein, Jordan Chafetz, and Stephen Lee Davis.

Updated – Ten things to know about the House transportation bill

Updated 11/5/2015 5 p.m. EST. We wrote this post in preparation for consideration of this bill on the House floor. But after the House finished consideration of the bill on Thursday (11/5), we updated this post to reflect the changes made (or not made) over the last few days. Look for the updated notes in the blue boxes with each item below and read our full statement on the bill here. -Ed.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee debated and approved their multi-year transportation reauthorization proposal last week. Next step is consideration on the House floor and then, if approved, conferenced (merged through negotiations) with the Senate, which passed their multi-year DRIVE Act back in July. Here are ten things you need to know about what’s in (or not in) the House bill which is expected to be considered on the House floor early next week.

ten-things-house-bill-strr

1) The House will likely tap the same non-transportation revenue sources as the Senate did to pay the tab

Though the House has yet to officially pass a plan to pay for their bill (unlike the Senate), we expect them to closely emulate the Senate plan to cobble together about $45 billion from numerous future funding sources to fully cover the cost of the first three years of their bill. Though as many as 10 years would be needed to realize some of the new revenues to cover the next three years of spending, it would instantly transfer billions from the general fund to the transportation fund, increasing the deficit, a practice that Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) called “generational theft.” We’ve already tapped general taxpayer dollars to the tune of $73 billion over the last few years to keep the nation’s transportation trust fund solvent.

One factor possibly complicating this plan is that the House and Senate just reached a separate budget agreement (to keep the government operating) that also requires selling oil from the country’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve — a mechanism that comprised the second largest stream of funding for the Senate’s bill. If that expected $9 billion in revenue for the DRIVE Act is no more, how will the House fill this gap?

For a detailed rundown of the Senate’s funding plan the House is expected to emulate, read our ten things post on the Drive Act.

Updated: The House did indeed use the Senate funding sources as their starting point, but there was a fairly stunning development late on Wednesday night when an amendment was proposed that taps billions from a Federal Reserve surplus account; an amount that could be sufficient to fund the bill for a full six years. It may be one way to allow other contentious payfors from the Senate to be removed — the dividend rate change for banks among them — but it could also nearly double the amount of money available. We’ll be watching this closely as more news develops.

2) Enshrines three more years of policy into law than we can pay for

The Senate bill — and we expect the House bill to follow suit as covered above — authorizes the surface transportation program for six full years but includes a funding plan that can only cover the first three years of the bill. The bill would use $46 billion in future offsets to cover its three-year length, leaving a future Congress to find another $50 billion or so to pay for the last three years. We’d be the first to say that we urgently need the certainty and stability that a multi-year bill provides to states and local communities as they plan transportation investments, but this is unprecedented and it’s incredibly shortsighted to lock our country’s transportation policy in stone for six years when we aren’t willing to pay for it. Especially when we’re enshrining transportation policy into law for the next six years, which simply doesn’t do enough to meet the needs of local communities of all sizes. Which leads us to…

Updated: Per the point above, it’s unclear just how much funding is going to be available. Enough funding for the first three years will be transferred, but the new funding sources tapped via amendment on Wednesday will provide far more funding and could be enough for the full six years of the House bill. Leadership will have decisions to make about what to do with the additional funding.

3) Misses a golden opportunity to provide more funding to local communities

The House bill is a major missed opportunity for giving cities, towns and local communities of all sizes greater access and control over federal transportation dollars. An amendment from Representatives Davis (R-IL) and Titus (D-NV), with broad bipartisan support, would direct more flexible funding to towns and cities and increase transparency in how projects are selected, but it was not included by the committee. Representatives Davis and Titus will be offering this amendment on the floor and we are going to need your help to make sure it gets into the bill.

Just like the Senate, the House bill does slightly increase the share of the bill’s most flexible funds that go to local communities by five percent (up to 55 percent of just one of many core highway programs), but that improvement only happens incrementally over the six years of the bill. This means that the full increase comes in the later years of the bill that likely won’t be paid for anytime soon — see #2 above. The House bill does lower to $10 million the minimum cost of projects that can apply for low-cost TIFIA loans, making it easier for local communities to access this smart federal financing program, but far more must be done to ensure that towns and cities both big and small have the resources and control they need to stay to invest in the infrastructure they need to be economically competitive.

Updated: The Davis-Titus amendment was not allowed to be brought to the floor by the House Rules Committee, despite the significant bipartisan support — among the most for any amendment offered. This means that there was no airing of the argument on the House floor and no chance for even debating the merits of giving local communities more control or authority over transportation dollars. This was a major point of contention raised in our final statement on the bill.

4) Includes a freight program to help states and metro areas address goods movement issues, but needlessly limits innovative multimodal projects

Similar to the DRIVE Act, the House bill encourages crafting a multimodal freight plan but only about 10 percent of the new roughly $725 million per year discretionary freight grant program can be spent on multimodal projects. This means that the House is dictating from Washington exactly how states and metro areas should solve their freight challenges, robbing them of the flexibility to invest in whatever option can best keep freight moving.

This flies in the face of past statements from this same committee, which stated clearly in a report three years ago that our freight issues are multimodal and require multimodal solutions. “Moving goods and people effectively depends on all modes of transportation,” said Chairman Shuster in that report. “Because bottlenecks at any point in the transportation system can seriously impede freight mobility and drive up the cost of the goods,” Rep. John Duncan added, “improving the efficient and safe flow of freight across all modes of transportation directly impacts the health of the economy.” The committee’s recommendation was to “ensure robust public investment in all modes of transportation on which freight movement relies.” The committee should take its own advice.

Updated: This was unchanged.

5) Small changes to transit funding with sizable implications

While the bill largely preserves the historical share of funding overall intended for transit, it makes two changes that will have significant impacts on communities planning new or expanded transit service to meet the burgeoning demand for housing and jobs near public transportation.

First, while highway projects will continue to have 80 percent of their costs covered by federal highway funds, the committee lowered the share paid on transit capital projects to 50 percent. While many big transit projects already match more than half of the cost locally, especially in more prosperous metro areas, poorer and smaller communities will both be punished. Federal Small Starts transit capital funds often cover well over 50 percent of the cost for new bus lines or bus rapid transit service in smaller communities, which will be disproportionately impacted by this change.

Secondly, the House bill eliminates the flexibility for a state or metro area to use a portion of the flexible federal funds that they control outright as the local contribution or match for transit projects, taking away more of the flexibility and control from local communities that this committee professes to value. Representatives Lipinski and Nadler spoke up during committee and are working to fix these before the bill is finalized on the House floor.

One piece of good news is that the small grant program to help support smart development around transit to help boost ridership and the bottom line will continue to be funded at $10 million per year for 6 years.

Updated: An amendment from Rep. Nadler and several others to fix this was approved and incorporated into the bill, though it doesn’t quite return things to standard practice of today. Under the House bill as passed, states or metros will be able to shift their CMAQ funds to transit projects and use that as part of their local contribution to a project. This can raise the effective federal contribution to these projects over 50 percent, though the match rate will stay at the new lower 50 percent rate. We’ll have some more information on this soon.

6) A once sizable loan program (TIFIA) slashed by 80 percent; no support for transit-oriented development projects

The TIFIA low-cost financing program — where federal loans are paid back from local revenues often generated from the projects themselves — is cut significantly from $1 billion down to $200 million per year. Congress had just massively increased this program in the current MAP-21 law in order to stretch our limited federal dollars as far as possible and leverage other revenue sources. And with so much more loan money available after that 2012 increase, Congress directed USDOT to award dollars in a first-come, first-serve basis instead of by competition based on the merits of the projects. Now the House proposes to cut the program by 80 percent while still preventing USDOT from judging projects on need, performance or return on investment.

Secondly, Representative Edwards (D-MD) and Barbara Comstock (R-VA) were urged to withdraw their amendment to allow transit-oriented development projects to be eligible for receiving these low-cost TIFIA loans — a common sense proposal that would net more riders and revenue for the operating agencies and cost the federal government zero dollars.

Updated: This amendment was yet another rejected by the Rules Committee, which barred it from receiving a vote or debate on the House floor. This amendment had zero cost and allowed these projects only to apply for funding. TIFIA — one of the points of pride for the architects of MAP-21 — remains slashed by 80 percent (down to $200 million) in the final bill.

7) New performance measure on condition and access for disadvantaged urban areas

Thanks to the efforts of Representative Andre Carson (D-IN), the House bill does include a new performance measure intended to “assess the conditions, accessibility, and reliability of roads in economically distressed urban communities.” While we’d like for this section to include a more holistic measure for access — as in access to jobs or opportunity by any mode of travel as a better and broader indicator than relying on simply road condition — we’re happy to see the amendment’s inclusion. This signals that the House is open to conversations on adding new or improved performance measures to the bill. That’s a positive development.

Updated: No change made to this amendment. However, a similar amendment from Reps. Ellison, Grijalva, Waters and Huffman would have expanded on this idea and “established performance measures for accessibility for low-income and minority populations and people with disabilities; cumulative increase in residents’ connection to jobs; and the variety of transportation choices available to users, such as public transportation, bike and pedestrian pathways, and roads and highways,” per our amendment tracker. This second amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee.

8) Better planning to alleviate income-draining commutes and connect more people to jobs

An amendment from Representatives Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Ryan Costello (R-PA) was included to expand transportation options for commuters — with a focus on low-income communities — by leveraging the resources of employers and the private sector. Larger metropolitan areas would be required to develop regional goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled during peak commuting hours and improve transportation connections between areas with lots of jobs and areas where low-income households are concentrated. They would be required to identify existing public transportation services and employer-based commuter programs that support better access to jobs and identify proposed projects and programs that could reduce congestion and help connect more people to jobs. This is modeled after the successful Commuter Trip Reduction program in Washington State, which we profiled indirectly in this case study on a vanpooling program there.

Updated: No changes made.

9) The TIGER competitive grant program for smart state and local projects? Where is it?

Following yesterday’s announcement of another successful round of TIGER competitive grant awards and the proud press releases flying out of representatives’ offices from both parties, one might ask why TIGER isn’t included in the House bill. With leaders in the House speaking regularly of the need to get a better return on investment for our limited dollars, leverage other funding sources, and encourage more local innovation, they’d be smart to formally authorize TIGER — a grant program which can help realize those goals. Neither the House or Senate bills do this, and the communities that rely on this program — one of the few ways they can directly receive funding for their projects — will have to wonder each year if Congress’ appropriators will keep the program going.

Updated: TIGER is still M.I.A. in the final House bill. The bill has no increased competitive funds for innovative multimodal projects, save for the slight amount of the new freight program available for multimodal freight projects. The House bill continues the status quo of awarding funds and largely stays away from any shift to awarding funds based on benefits, merits or possible return on investment.

10) Where did the TAP program go?

The Transportation Alternatives Program that states and local communities use to help make walking and biking safer and more convenient was folded into another program (the Surface Transportation Program) and capped at $819 million per year over the life of the bill. This program already makes up just two percent of the total highway budget, and it will be even less if this bill is approved as is. While the policy was not changed in any damaging way, capping these funds (in a bill where all other programs increase in funding with inflation over the life of the bill) more or less guarantees that TAP will be capped in any future House and Senate conference agreement.

Updated: TAP was unchanged, though there were several amendments rejected that would have further reduced its funding or allowed states and metros to flex its funding away to other programs. But in a bill where almost all other programs grew at least slightly, TAP’s size is capped over the life of the bill, which results in an actual decrease in funds due to inflation — “compound dis-interest.” With possibly six years of funding now procured by the House, we could be looking at no net increase in funds for biking and walking for six more years instead of just three.

How Can a State Department of Transportation Do Right by the Locals?

A key theme in a recent Washington State DOT conference was a recognition that the state DOT needs to do more to engage with local constituents and agencies and meet local needs, particularly in cities. Those cities are the engines of economic growth, and where the default approach of the past half-century — road widening to speed driving at the expense of other goals — did not, does not, and will not work.

A sizable crowd at the WSDOT Innovations & Partnerships in Transportation summit

I attended the conference on September 22, entitled Innovations & Partnerships in Transportation, which strived to train WSDOT staff and local agencies in Washington State on partnership and innovation.

With Secretary of Transportation Lynn Peterson at the helm since early 2013, WSDOT is one state DOT that is working hard to be more innovative and responsive to evolving transportation needs. T4A member Transportation Choices Coalition worked with T4A and Smart Growth America to organize a training for WSDOT leadership staff in Olympia in November, 2014 on performance-based planning. In some ways, the 2014 training helped seed interest in this most recent symposium of WSDOT and local agency staff from across the state.

Roger Millar, recently departed from SGA, is starting work as Deputy Secretary at WSDOT in October.

Many of the same speakers we brought in 2014 came back to discuss many of the same issues in this bigger forum. Jeffrey Tumlin of Nelson Nygard returned to speak about new approaches to practical design. SGA’s Roger Millar, also featured prominently in the 2014 workshop, was incidentally just hired as WSDOT’s Deputy Secretary starting in October.

State DOTs typically concern themselves with longer distance or inter-city travel, and not necessarily with the local needs that drive local economies, but this conference pointed to a different direction for WSDOT. Multiple speakers discussed the changes leading the agency to a more multimodal approach to transportation that does a better job of meeting the needs of cities and their residents. Households are shrinking, Millennials especially are driving less, buying fewer cars and getting their drivers licenses later if at all. More people are moving to downtowns and walkable neighborhoods, and companies are moving to these places to attract and retain talent.

The economy is shifting from an emphasis on ownership to an emphasis on sharing, experiences, and more efficient use of resources.

To illustrate the pace of change we could expect to see because of new mobility options like Lyft, Uber, bike share and autonomous cars, speaker Gabe Klein, a former director of both Chicago’s and D.C.’s DOT, asked the audience how many of them owned a smart phone 10 years ago. No one raised their hands — smartphones weren’t even available just ten short years ago, but today nearly every participant owned one. “That’s how fast change can take place.”

Several speakers, Jeffrey Tumlin in particular, talked openly about the problem of induced demand — the phenomenon where increased roadway capacity induces more driving resulting in a failure to solve congestion problems. This topic is not one typically broached at state DOT functions.

Can a state DOT re-orient toward the new realities of multi-modalism, urban economic development, and unknowns like autonomous vehicles? WSDOT, with Lynn Peterson at the helm, is one of the state DOTs that has a shot. In closing the conference, Lynn called on the several hundred of her staff in attendance to work through these issues in partnership with local agencies and constituencies.

The Senate’s multi-year transportation bill misses the mark on multimodal freight

Below is an in-depth explanation of one of the 10 things you need to know about the Senate’s DRIVE Act.

The Senate’s multi-year transportation bill recognizes that efficient freight movement is important, but the bill prioritizes freight moving on highways over that moving by rail, air, ports and pipelines.

The DRIVE Act (HR 22) is unique from past transportation bills in that it creates a program for freight. The bill includes almost $1 billion for freight in its first year and up to $2.5 billion toward the end of the authorization in 2021. (The bill was more robust when originally introduced in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, providing $2 billion in the first year and rising to $2.5 billion. It was scaled back to a smaller cost when some of the DRIVE Act’s “pay-fors” were deemed too controversial).

The program features a comprehensive and thoughtful national- and state-level planning framework to analyze the condition and performance of the national freight transportation system. It would require states to identify priority projects for improving freight movement regardless of mode – including rail, seaports, pipelines and airports. Yet the program restricts the majority of funds to highway projects. Only 10 percent of the money it provides to states can go to other modes.

This funding model would fall far short of the costs of multimodal freight projects. California, for example, would be allocated $90 million under this program in 2016, only $9 million of which could be used for non-highway projects. The Port of Los Angeles’s West Basin Railyard project – a rail and port project – costs $137.7 million.

Similarly, Illinois would have less than $4 million available. Chicago’s CREATE program – one of the most significant freight projects in the nation, which would improve rail freight efficiency throughout much of the country – costs over $3 billion.

This restriction seems burdensome, particularly since the new program would be paid for out of the general fund, not by roadway users. Congress has taken funding from across the board and restricted it to highway projects, even if a state says that its priorities for freight are elsewhere.

Also troubling is the fact that the National Freight Program’s funding would be distributed among the states evenly, using a formula that ignores where freight volumes are highest or where goods get stuck in congestion or bottlenecks. It’s the equivalent of investing wildfire prevention dollars in all 50 states even though a majority of fires are in the dry, arid west.

Reducing the country’s freight bottlenecks and helping businesses efficiently move commerce is a worthwhile goal, and one that can only be achieved with a truly multimodal freight program. When the House takes up their transportation bill in the early fall, we hope they rethink the DRIVE Act’s distribution formula and the restrictive funding cap on non-highway projects to ensure this program lives up the goals outlined for the National Freight Program.

The economic development potential of passenger rail for downtowns

In a Next City piece, T4America board chair John Robert Smith discussed strong public investment in downtowns in smaller cities — especially those with passenger rail connections — as a smart way to signal to the market that the public sector is committed to downtown.

The article explores the story of Opa-locka, Florida, a town of 15,000 people in Miami-Dade County, where town officials moved City Hall into an 80,000-square-foot mixed-use building in the city’s downtown partially to save money. How do they expect to save money? The city only plans to use 40 percent of the property, leaving the rest for other offices and ground-floor retail — thanks to the area’s mixed-use zoning. With the passenger/commuter rail line expected to expand or add service, they’re hoping to capitalize on the increase in property values.

On the one hand, its value is expected to appreciate because, located near the Tri-Rail station, it’s in the heart of a recently created overlay district. And more connectivity is expected in the future: A Tri-Rail commuter train already runs through that station, but several lines expected to come through Miami, including a private high(ish)-speed rail line, could eventually connect those commuters with more of southeast Florida.

“The district has more flexibility for developers,” Chiverton says, explaining that the city changed zoning in the area to encourage mixed residential and commercial uses.

“It’s a perfect moment for us to purchase prior to values going up,” he says.

T4America’s John Robert Smith — no stranger to the economic development potential of passenger rail connections — pointed to other cities that have moved their city offices to downtown locations and the value of those moves for their cities:

Smith also points to the city of Normal, Illinois, which he says included many of its city offices within the same walls as its multimodal facility when it went up. He adds that older cities often already have established city halls within their downtown core, located near historic transit hubs (and likely, already long-ago paid off). Decentralized cities that were built later are more probable candidates for a move.

But whether or not it makes sense as a cost-saver, Smith says that being centrally located is a good long-range strategy for city offices.

“If we’re expecting the private sector to move in, then the public sector has to be the first to maintain its presence in the downtown,” he says. “We talk a lot about [public-private partnerships], but the truth is that the public sector always needs to go first.”

You can read the rest of the article here, and you can read more about Normal, IL, in our can-do profile.

Competitive grant programs in PA and OR provide a blueprint for a different approach

There’s strong support for a plan in Congress to give locals more access to their transportation dollars, but two states are already leading the way on the idea of competitive grants for smart projects — and Pennsylvania took a big step today.

Drexel Master Plan before after
A photo of current conditions and a rendering from the campus master plan for Drexel University around 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, one of the grantees. More info below.

The Pennsylvania DOT today announced the initial winners of a new statewide competitive grant program specifically for multimodal projects and the impressive list shows just how much demand there is at the local level for these types of innovative projects.

Pennsylvania was one of 12 states that managed to successfully raise new transportation revenue over the last couple of years, but they went a step beyond just raising funds to pour into the same old projects or plug budget gaps. After changing their transportation funding structure, they directed a portion of the new money raised each year into a new, statewide, multimodal grant program.

The first round of winners totaling $84 million is an impressive collection of roadway, freight and passenger rail, aviation, port and waterway, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and other projects. Every single applicant has their own financial skin in the game, bringing significant local or private money to the table.

That last detail is important — applicants are required to have 30 percent of the total cost in hand from other sources to even be considered for receiving state funds. By contrast, traditional federal formula funds only require a 20 percent match. And unlike most other grant programs, private entities can apply and win funding (more on one of those below), which means private money can be brought to bear on improving the transportation system.

Pennsylvania is not the first to create a program like this. In 2005, Oregon successfully created a program called ConnectOregon, which has received more than 528 applications and awarded $482 million in grants since the program’s inception. In just the first four rounds of competitive grants, $340 million in grants for multimodal projects leveraged an additional $500 million in non-state funds.

One thing that local elected officials like to hear is that these programs in PA or OR (or the potential programs in every state that Congress’ Innovation in Surface Transportation Act would create) are equally accessible to rural and urban areas.

Even if you’re a smaller city, the eligibility is the same: Do you have a good project that hits all the competitive criteria from the state? Does your project bring a strong return on investment? Are you bringing your own money to the table? Then you’ve got as good a chance to win funding as a big project in Philadelphia.

Mayors and elected officials throughout the country are looking for an opportunity to compete for funds — especially those that are too often left out of the decision-making process. Representatives in both chambers of Congress have taken these concerns to heart and incorporated some of the best qualities of these two state programs into The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act, which has strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

Pore over the list of winners in Pennsylvania announced today and it’s obvious just how much pent-up demand there is to get funding for smart, innovative local projects. One project in Pittsburgh stands out from the typical winners you see in TIGER, because it’s a private entity. The Oxford Development Company received $2.2 million to augment a development project that will bring tangible benefits to the transportation network in the neighborhood and for the city. Oxford has a $130 million plan to develop Three Crossings, a mixed-use development in the Strip District that will include a multimodal transportation facility on-site and improved bike and pedestrian connections into that historic walkable neighborhood just north of downtown.

A few others worth noting:

Port Authority of Allegheny County, McKeesport – $1 million to demolish the existing McKeesport Transportation Center and build a new multimodal terminal that will bring together regional and local buses, vans, and ACCESS paratransit, a park-and-ride lot, and a major bicycle trail. (Photos of the current station)
Drexel University, Philadelphia – $2.5 million to create an integrated plan to address transportation, commercial opportunities and the station and facilities in the area around Philadelphia’s bustling 30th Street Station. (Photo from the Drexel Master Plan below)
Erie Regional Airport Authority, Millcreek Township – $700,000 for improvements to the Erie International Airport terminal building.
Economic Progress Alliance of Crawford County, Greenwood Township – $1 million to construct an 85-car unit train loop track in the Keystone Regional Industrial Park that will allow a an 85-car train to be serviced, unloaded and turned around at the Keystone Regional Industrial Park without having to uncouple its engine or cars. The state’s $1 million contribution will make it possible for this $7.2 million project to proceed. Story.
Big Spring School District, West Pennsboro Township – $525,000 to complete pedestrian safety improvements, including the design of a pedestrian tunnel connecting Big Spring High School with the fitness center and middle school located across the street in this small town.