Skip to main content

Tag: pennsylvania

Lessons from recent successes: Winning State Funding for Transportation

Growing again after a long economic slump that left a huge backlog of unmet needs, a dozen or more states are moving now to raise revenue for transportation. What can they learn from the other states that acted in the last year or two? Our new report, out today, draws out seven key lessons.

Transportation for America has closely followed these efforts in state legislatures to put transportation funding on sound footing and today we are releasing Winning State Funding for Transportation: Lessons from Recent Successes. This short report highlights some of the big-picture keys to success gleaned from those states, with an in-depth look at successful campaigns in Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Wyoming, and Vermont.

States face an increasing challenge in funding their mounting transportation needs. Their primary sources of revenue — taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel — haven’t kept up with needs as vehicles become more efficient, per-person driving mileage declines, and construction costs rise along with inflation.

Though the financial picture varies from state to state, this is a pressing issue from coast to coast. Twenty-four states have gone a decade or more without raising their gas taxes. Aging infrastructure is in need of desperate repair and the demands coming from demographic and economic changes mean states need more revenue, not less.

Since 2012, 12 states have responded to that challenge by enacting new revenue sources for transportation, while dozens more have considered such legislation. And the list of states taking up this issue right now during 2015 legislative sessions is just as long.

It is important to note that all of the states that have acted thus far, and those working to do so this year or beyond are doing so in expectation of ongoing federal support.

One key lesson worth noting up front: Legislators who supported such moves have met with little to no pushback at the polls. In fact, a Transportation for America analysis of the most recent election cycle found that 98 percent of the supportive lawmakers up for re-election won the primary following their vote – and we found no evidence that any lost as a direct result of their vote.

So far this year, nine governors spanning from Washington to Connecticut, representing both parties, have stepped out in favor of raising transportation revenue publicly in their State of the State addresses. Their leadership follows a trend of bucking the conventional wisdom and supporting new revenue to invest in transportation.

The strategies and examples discussed in this report are intended to be a helpful guide for those emerging leaders as they navigate the unique context of their own individual states to pass transportation revenue legislation, and in turn, set an example for others to follow in the future

Read or download the report today. Visit our home for information on states attempting or succeeding at passing new funding legislation, and sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

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.

Follow-Up: Maryland pols raise their gas tax, voters respond supportively

While the conventional wisdom is that voting for a tax increase spells doom for a politician, recent evidence from Maryland continues to show that state politicians rarely lose their seats when they vote for a gas tax hike.

Maryland is one of five states that recently raised or modified their gas tax to raise more money to fund transportation and infrastructure projects. (Be sure to read our first post focusing on election returns in Pennsylvania and Virginia following gas tax hikes/changes.) While zero Maryland Republicans voted “yes” for the increase, we found that out of the 80 Democrats who voted yes and ran for re-election, 94% kept their seat in the June 24th primary.

On the other side of the aisle, 12.5% of Republicans lost their seat in the primaries.

Maryland follows the pattern set by Virginia and Pennsylvania that state legislators who vote for a tax increase – especially one specifically to raise money to invest in transportation – don’t face penalties at the polls from voters.

The five incumbents who lost primaries were all Democrats: Shawn Tarrant (D-Baltimore City), Darren Swain (D-Prince George’s County), Keiffer Mitchell Jr. (D-Woodlawn, Catonsville), Melvin Stukes (D-Woodlawn, Catonsville), and Michael Summers (D-Prince George’s County).

While a majority of those losses were theorized to be due to Maryland’s law of redistricting every ten years, some were also due to misconduct allegations, according to news articles about the races. A quick scan of the postmortems on each race doesn’t include any mentions about voting for the gas tax increase.

The Republicans had their own problems of redistricting and misconduct as well; in fact, the gas tax seemed to be a complete non-issue for this primary.

As primaries unfold in states taking up transportation funding, we will continue to update this story with more primary and general election results as they become available. As it stands right now, three states have proven that a state legislator can vote for a gas tax increase for transportation funding without fear of losing his or her job.

In state elections, voters decline to punish pols for raising transportation taxes

UPDATED: July 14, 2014

Raising the gas tax is a political death sentence, right? Well, not necessarily. In at least two states where legislators raised gas taxes or other fees in the last two years, voters have responded by sending almost all of the supportive members of both parties back to their state houses. Could it be that voters are more supportive of raising revenue than we think?

States are finding it more and more difficult to find funding for transportation and other infrastructure. The 2012 MAP-21 law kept federal funding essentially flat, even as the lingering effects of the long recession have left states in desperate need of infrastructure repair and renovation. Meanwhile, gas taxes are not yielding what they once did, thanks to rising construction costs, growing fuel efficiency and a drop in miles driven per person. With no other solution in sight, some states have concluded they have little choice but to increase gas taxes to maintain and build a 21st century transportation system.

In the last two years, at least seven states have done the “unthinkable” and either increased their gas tax or otherwise changed their revenue model to raise transportation funding: Maryland, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. (For a complete run-down of state revenue moves, see our tracker here.)

With expected insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund occurring as soon as next month, its important that Members of Congress take a scan of what is happening in their states and districts. Of the seven states that raised taxes for transportation, Pennsylvania and Virginia have had primary or general elections since passing those bills. We took a look at how legislators who voted in favor fared in those contests to see if the mantra that gas tax votes lead to an early end to political careers is true.

In 2012, before the legislation passed, Pennsylvania was faced with transportation cuts creating worries of an increase of structurally deficient bridges under weight restrictions, road mileage rated in “poor” condition, and a decrease in transit service throughout the Keystone State. At the time, it led the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges with 4,700.

Pennsylvania’s changes to fuel-related taxes and fees gave the Department of Transportation $2.3 billion to repair and maintain the state’s roads, bridges and mass transit system. The revenue package amounted to a 40 percent increase in the department’s budget, and created an annual $20 million statewide multimodal competitive transportation fund accessible to local governments and businesses. The measure passed 113-85 in the House and 43-7 in the Senate.

Of the 156 aye votes, 90 of the favorable votes were Republicans and 66 were Democrats. Thirty-two of the members that voted “yes” were not on the ballot for reasons such as retirement, seeking different elected office or term not yet expiring, leaving 124 “yes” vote members on the primary ballot on May 20, 2014. Of the members on the ballot, just 5 lost their primary, meaning that 96 percent of those who voted for the transportation revenue won their election. Just one Republican lost his primary Republican Representative Michael Fleck (R-Huntingdon) — but he won the Democratic primary through a write-in campaign. Fleck will be on the November general election ballot, but doesn’t have plans to switch parties. Four House Democrats did lose their seats: Leanna Washington (D-Montgomery) and J.P Miranda (D-Philadelphia), who were both indicted for misusing campaign funds; Erin Molchany (D-Alleghany County) who was re-districted and lost her seat to a Democrat who had voted No on the legislation; and James Clay (D-Philadelphia).

“Pennsylvania legislators showed political courage in voting for the transportation revenue package in 2013 to guarantee the state’s economy and overall mobility of the population would continue to prosper,” said Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Department of Transportation, Barry Schoch. “In return, Pennsylvania’s voters supported those that stepped up to the plate and took this crucial vote by supporting them in our primary election.”

In Virginia, legislators last year replaced the state’s 17.5 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline — which had not been changed since 1987 — with a new 3.5 percent wholesale tax on gasoline (6 percent on diesel) that will keep pace with economic growth and inflation. It also raised the state’s general sales tax and gave the increment to transportation, and created a regional funding mechanism that boosted the sales tax to six percent in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads and required those funds to be spent only on transportation projects in those areas. The measure passed 64-35 in the House and 26-12 in the Senate.

The commonwealth’s 100 House Delegates were on last November’s general election ballot, while the 40 Senate seats, whose elections are not staggered, will have their election next fall. Of the 64 House Delegates that voted for the transportation revenue package, 31 were Republicans and 33 were Democrats. Five of the “yes” vote members weren’t on last fall’s ballot due to retirement or seeking different elected office. No Democrats lost their seats and just four Republicans were on the losing end in their elections, including: Joe T. May (R-Clarke), Mark Dudenhefer (R-Prince William), Beverly Sherwood (R-Frederick), and Michael Watson (R-James City). Of the 183 elected officials who showed the courage to support necessary infrastructure in Virginia and Pennsylvania, just 9 lost their general or primary elections representing less than 5 percent of those who voted “yes” in these states.

As Wyoming, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Hampshire have their primaries throughout the summer, we will be keeping tabs and will let you know if this trend holds true. But to this point, all indications are that a Congress facing a deadline to salvage our nation’s transportation program can safely follow state legislators’ lead on transportation revenue. In return, they are more likely to earn gratitude than ire from constituents eager to ensure a sound transportation infrastructure.

We recently published the results from Mayland’s primaries and the results following their gas tax legislation. 

In 2013, 20-plus states took up transportation funding: Here’s the final tally

Welcome to 2014! With a large number of state legislatures convening as the new year gets underway, it’s worth a look back at an important trend from 2013: States stepping forward to raise additional money for transportation. With federal funding remaining flat in 2012′s transportation bill (MAP-21) and after years of deferred action during the long recession, a large number of states, metro areas and local communities moved to supplement federal dollars with new revenues of their own.

In April, we reported that 19 states were looking at ways to increase their own funding for transportation. Some needed the funds just to make ends meet after years of flat or declining state revenues, while others also were looking for funds to match those available from MAP-21 new and updated loan and grant programs (like TIFIA or TIGER).

Here’s how they fared:

Key Successes

We covered Maryland’s ambitious plan on this blog, as well as Massachusetts.

Both of those states’ plans indexed the state gas tax to keep pace with inflation — something the federal gas tax, unchanged since 1993 — does not do. In Maryland, the state also added a sales tax on gasoline, while in Massachusetts, the package included an increase in cigarette taxes and certain business taxes. The good news was that in making the changes, both states recognized the importance of all modes of transportation and the revenues will fund important transit and road projects around the states.

In Virginia, Governor McDonnell began the debate with a proposal to abolish the per-gallon gasoline tax entirely and replace it with sales and wholesale taxes on fuel. That  brought together legislators from both parties, who developed an innovative package of revenue increases to put transportation funding on a long-term, stable footing.

New legislation raised vehicle fees, along with local taxes in two of the states’ most heavily populated areas, Northern Virginia (near Washington, DC) and Hampton Roads (near Norfolk/Virginia Beach on the coast). Recognizing that businesses, residents, and visitors to Virginia depend on many types of transportation to move around the state, the new law directs funding to all modes of surface transportation, including transit, passenger rail, roads, and bridges. The package is projected to have more than $9.5 billion in economic impact in the state. As the Gov. McDonnell said in signing the bill: “This legislation will ensure that Virginia’s economy can grow in the years ahead, and that businesses will have the infrastructure they need to create the good-paying jobs Virginians deserve.”

Most recently, legislators in Pennsylvania reached agreement on a package of tax and fee changes that will raise $2.3 billion annually for the state’s transportation infrastructure – $1.65 billion for roads and bridges and $475 million for transit. The debate went down to the wire with agreement finally reached in a special legislative session just before Thanksgiving, allowing the governor to sign the bill on a cold day in late November.

AP photo by Nabil Mark - Gov. Tom Corbett, center, signs into law a bill that will provide $2.3 billion a year for improvements to Pennsylvania's highways, bridges and mass-transit systems.

AP photo by Nabil Mark – Gov. Tom Corbett, center, signs into law a bill that will provide $2.3 billion a year for improvements to Pennsylvania’s highways, bridges and mass-transit systems.

The PA legislation eliminates the retail tax on gasoline and a state cap on gas tax paid at the wholesale level and raises various vehicles and driver fees over the next five years. The new funding will help to advance projects like the rehabilitation of the structurally deficient Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh and of outdated equipment used by SEPTA.

Not all states that raised money recognized the value of investing across the board in all types of transportation to keep their economies moving. Ohio, Wyoming, and Vermont enacted tax increases intended for highway projects only. In Wisconsin, new bonding authority was enacted, with bond funds directed almost entirely to highways.

One positive outcome in Wisconsin: While the governor had proposed kicking transit out of the state transportation fund (similar to what the House of Representatives proposed in 2012), the legislature rejected that proposal and instead transferred general fund money into the fund (much as the federal government has done for its highway trust fund) to keep funding public transportation.

Try again next year!

Some states explicitly punted the issue to next year by creating commissions to report back to the legislature on transportation revenue options.

In Indiana, where a bill had been moving forward to allow the central Indiana region (which includes Indianapolis) to raise their own regional taxes to pay for transit, legislators instead commissioned a study on how to fund transit in the region. In November, the transit study commission voted in favor of allowing counties in the Indianapolis region to impose an income tax or business tax increase, if approved by a voter referendum, to fund regional transit. Reports like these help reinforce the notion — which we agree with — that regions should always have the ability, especially with the blessing of voters, to raise their own revenues to invest in regional transportation needs. We will definitely be keeping Indiana on our “watch list” for 2014.

Revenue proposal - ballot measures

Another state to watch in 2014 is Washington, where legislators negotiated on transportation funding through mid-December before calling it quits for the year. They promise to resume when the next legislative session begins in January. The current discussion is about increasing the state gas tax, with legislators debating items such as stormwater treatment, how to use the sales taxes collected from transportation projects, and funding for public transportation.

The need is urgent in Washington. Without any increase in state revenue, for example, the bus systems in the Seattle region are facing severe cuts in service that employers and employees depend on, along with fare increases.

A state we also hope will try again is Missouri, where a plan to raise $7.9 billion over 10 years through a penny sales tax passed both the Missouri House and Senate, but was then filibustered at the 11th hour when the Senate took up the package for a final vote. The fact that it was a sales tax was notable because in Missouri, as in many other states, while gas taxes are limited to only funding highway projects, a sales tax can be used for any mode of transportation, giving the state much more flexibility to invest.

Looking back

This movement we saw in 2013 is just the beginning. More and more states are increasingly looking for ways to bring more of their own dollars to the table, as well as making plans to invest in a range of transportation options. For a complete list see our state funding tracker.

The folks on the ground in these towns, cities, and metro areas know how important transportation is to their economic success. And keeping those local economies humming is key to our national economic prosperity.

Other states – and the federal government – need to take a page from their playbook and find a way to invest more money in transportation – it’s vital for our economy. One good place to start the discussion would be with our proposal to raise more revenue for transportation for the price of a weekly coffee and doughnut per commuter.

Rethinking the gas tax: Suddenly it’s the theme of 2013

Is the per-gallon gas tax going the way of the full-service filling station?

To look at the flurry of proposals coming out lately, you might think so. Since the start of the year, major new proposals from industry leaders, governors and state legislatures have sparked a new debate over the ways we collect revenue collection for transportation — at the federal, state and local levels.

Earlier this month, the outgoing head of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, John Horsley, proposed replacing the per-gallon federal tax with a sales tax on fuel. Although he didn’t specify a level, an AASHTO press release indicated it should be set “at a level that restores solvency” to the transportation trust fund, meaning it would have to take in at least $15 billion more a year just to keep spending at current levels. While some no doubt will deride it as a stealth tax increase, Horsley said, “The cost of the reform to taxpayers would be less than $1 per week, per vehicle.”

At the same time, 2013 already has seen several ambitious proposals for funding transportation outside of the excise tax on gas.  Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick in his state of the state address proposed raising his state’s income tax rate from 5.25 to 6.25 percent and lowering the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 4.5 percent, while earmarking sales tax revenue for infrastructure, with a significant share dedicated to public transportation.  Patrick said those moves would raise $1.02 billion in new revenue per year on average for the next ten years – none of it from a per-gallon gas tax.

Last week came a report from Pennsylvania that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett is preparing to a release plan to add nearly $2 billion to the state’s transportation funding pot. Though the details are speculative pending a public unveiling next week, he has pledged that the money won’t come from an increase at the gas pump.

These proposals come on the heels of the month’s most controversial, headline-grabbing pitch from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell to scrap his state’s gas tax altogether.  Instead, he would raise the state’s sales tax from 5 to 5.8 percent – ironically on everything but gasoline – while increasing vehicle-registration fees and adds an annual $100 charge for drivers of alternative-fuel cars. Those changes would raise an extra $3.1 billion over five years, he said.

At bottom, the recent move away from gas taxes as the go-to source of transportation funds is a nod to new realities: Their earning power is shrinking every year, and car-dependent voters will not stomach increases commensurate with their desire for a robust transportation network.

At the same time, both the highway lobby and environmentalists are seeing their long-held arguments undermined by experience. Environmentalists have contended that gas taxes should rise to slow consumption and speed the transition away from oil. The political reality is that gas taxes can’t be imposed in the U.S. in a way that changes behavior. Behavior now is changing, but for other reasons.

The highway lobby has spent years and millions making the case that gas taxes are “user fees” and are rightly devoted to roads. But with experts like DOT Secretary Ray LaHood predicting that nearly every vehicle will be a hybrid or electric a decade from now, most motorists will be paying little or no such “user fee” absent a major change.

That, of course, says nothing about meeting the needs of the vast majority of Americans who will be living in metro regions too crowded for one-person-per-car travel. State gas taxes certainly can’t meet those needs: 22 states have a constitutional prohibition against spending gas tax revenue on anything but roads, and eight states have similar statutory restrictions.

The reality today, though, is that gas taxes only cover half of the bill for building and maintaining our road network, and that ratio is dropping every year. At the local level, of course, nearly all road and transit costs are paid by sales, property or other non-fuel taxes.

While moving away from the gas taxes, all of the recent proposals — coming from Republicans in VA and PA or Democrats in MA, MN and MD – would amount to asking citizens to pay more for transportation infrastructure. That is something that polls show voters increasingly are willing to do when they understand what the money will be used for.

As we have said since the rollout of our “Blueprint” in 2009, we believe all options to increase funding for reinvesting in America’s infrastructure should be on the table.  Back then, T4 proposed a variety of options including a 20 cent increase in the gas tax, converting the federal gas tax to a sales tax, or imposing a per-barrel fee on imported oil.

The gasoline tax has its merits, but given the lack of political will to raise it significantly, and the wide range of needs, it’s time to begin thinking of  infrastructure as a basic government function that can, and should be, funded the full range of available revenue sources. Our global competitors, after all, have recognized this for quite some time, and are moving ahead of us in building a 21st century infrastructure.

Pennsylvania Governor proposes a change to fuel taxes to help close the gas tax gap

On Thursday, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett will release his long awaited proposal for remedying the Keystone state’s daunting transportation funding and policy difficulties. Leaks from several key legislative staffers indicate that his plan will propose a new source of transportation revenue that doesn’t violate his pledge to never increase taxes.

Pennsylvania State House

(This post is by Andrea Kiepe, T4 America’s regional organizer in Pennsylvania. -Ed.)

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Governor “intends to uncap the so-called oil company franchise tax,” allowing this tax to be applied to the full wholesale price of fuel, rather than an artificially limited $1.25 per gallon level. Removing this limit would eventually yield nearly $2 billion annually, according to information from the administration.

Pennsylvania’s key location as a shipping crossroads, rugged topography, cold weather and massive backlog of aging rails, roads and bridges have made the commonwealth a perfect example of the critical infrastructure problems affecting so many states. And like the rest of the country, declining gas tax revenues due to increasing fuel economy standards and/or reduced driving results in less available revenue as needs continue to grow.

Pennsylvania has the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges in the US, according to our report “The Fix We’re in For.” More than 26 percent of PA bridges – almost 6,000 in total – are in need of significant repairs and maintenance.

Just tackling the state’s vast backlog of road and bridge repair needs could consume every penny of the new funding source, according to 2008 figures from FHWA, gathered in Smart Growth America’s Repair Priorities report for Pennsylvania.

Repair Costs for Pennsylvania’s Road and Bridge Network

  • PennDOT state-owned major roads: 57,307 lane miles
  • Lane miles in “poor” condition 12,357
  • “Structurally deficient” bridges 5,789 (28%)
  • Annual preventative maintenance needs for road/bridge network: $2.9 billion
  • Annual major rehabilitation needs for “poor” and “deficient” roads/bridges: $509 million
  • Total annual road/bridge repair need: $3.4 billion

In light of the Governor’s new plan for funding, Pennsylvania residents and advocates will be wondering: Will this influx of new money fund expensive new roads and added lanes, or focus on repair, as PennDOT has successfully done in the past?

According to Repair Priorities, “The Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT), for example, has taken major steps in prioritizing repair and preservation projects … In recent years, PennDOT has steadily increased the portion of highway capital dollars spent on road repair and preservation projects from just 10% in 2004 to 43% in 2008. As a result, PennDOT, which is responsible for some of the oldest road infrastructure in the country, has increased the percentage of its lane-miles in good condition from 26% in 2004 to 29% in 2008.”

Many local advocates are also insistent that any transportation fixes must include funding for public transportation.

Recently, Philadelphia’s transit system, managed by SEPTA, was named the best in the US. Despite these accolades, the legacy system badly needs millions in upgrades and repairs to continue reliably carrying tens of thousands of passengers each day. Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh transit system was rocked by massive proposed cuts last year – as much as cutting service by one third. Though the funding gap was resolved without drastic cuts, there’s no long term funding solution for Pittsburgh transit on the horizon.

In a recent opinion piece, business and labor leaders including representatives of the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and the Laborers, said unanimously “We believe that additional revenue, if immediately and properly invested, would go a long way toward allowing the commonwealth to repair aging roads and bridges while meeting the capital requirements for our mass transit systems.”

Governor Corbett’s PennDOT Secretary Barry Schoch has issued recent statements that make it clear the Administration values transit and recognizes the need for adequate, stable funding for it.

“Mr. Schoch also said the governor’s plan will address all modes of transportation, including a long-term strategy for funding public transit agencies like the Port Authority…’We actually subsidize rural roads at a much higher rate than we subsidize mass transit. If you think about a two lane road – if it doesn’t carry at least 10,000 vehicles a day, it’s being subsidized.’ Schoch says most rural roads carry fewer than 2000 vehicles. And he says most of PennDOT’s revenue comes from vehicle fees and gas taxes; the lion’s share of which is paid by residents in Pennsylvania’s urban areas.”

Finally, Schoch also has indicated that the Governor will also propose new legislation creating new ways for cities and regions to raise funding for transportation improvements. This could be a great opportunity for beleaguered urban areas to use innovative financing mechanisms like TIFIA to fund system improvements.

Will this be the only source of revenue on the table? The Governor’s TFAC Commission report identified dozens of potential revenue sources, everything from LED signal light conversion to a host of increased fees and fines. Will the Legislature make repair a priority?

Many critical decisions still need to be made.

Newspapers across the country call for increased pedestrian safety following Dangerous by Design rankings

Jackson, Mississippi Credit: Dr. Scott Crawford.

This week’s release of Dangerous by Design has prompted several newspapers to editorialize in favor of tough pedestrian safety measures that address the urgency of the 47,000 killed and 688,000 injured on unsafe streets between 2000 and 2009.

The report generated ample coverage in Florida, home to the nation’s four most dangerous metropolitan areas for pedestrians: Orlando, Tampa, Miami and Jacksonville. Statewide, 5,163 Floridians were killed between 2000 and 2009, at a cost of $22.2 billion.

The Orlando Sentinel weighed in Wednesday, warning: “If you like to walk in Florida, the bad news just keeps coming,” continuing: “What’s attractive about living in a place where it’s dangerous to even walk?”

The Sentinel also turned its attention to Florida’s elected officials who are in a position to make a difference:

Can we look to our current leadership to correct this dubious distinction? Well, U.S Rep. John Mica wants to lift the requirement that 10 percent of federal gas tax proceeds be spent on things like sidewalks and bike lanes. And Gov. Rick Scott’s new Secretary of Transportation, Ananth Prasad, recently testified before Congress that, when money’s tight, it might not make sense to build — you guessed it — sidewalks and bike trails.

(Ed. note: The Sentinel figure is too high — in fact, about 1.5 percent of total federal transportation dollars go toward making walking and biking safer.)

The Gainesville Sun reached a similar conclusion in “A death defying act: Walking across Florida’s mean streets,” saying: “Facilitating the fast movement of automobiles is a far higher priority than saving lives.”

In West Virginia, several newspapers covered the report and the Charleston Daily Mail ran an editorial titled “Protecting pedestrians should be a priority.” They wrote:

Improving safety for pedestrians is essential if the state is going to promote walking as part of any program for healthier living. Given this state’s abysmal rankings in most health categories, the issue seems worthy of government attention.

West Virginia is the home of Nick Rahall, the top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as key Republican Shelley Moore Capito, who this week announced her intention to fight for pedestrian safety in the next transportation bill. The state ranked 24th out of 50 in overall pedestrian danger index.

Up north, the Philadelphia Inquirer noted Pennsylvania’s relatively favorable ranking overall while imploring Mayor Michael Nutter to continue efforts toward promoting a walkable city. Philadelphia has already expanded bike lanes and instituted a Complete Streets policy.

And in Hawaii, which had the highest fatality rate among senior pedestrians, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser similarly urged renewed focus on the needs of all road users.

Failure to adopt a policy that helps seniors and all citizens use transportation without undue hazard would be a mistake, more costly in the long run and a contradiction in a state that prides itself on its year-round enjoyment of the outdoors.

You can view more state rankings on our report map here.

UPDATE: The Detroit Free Press, hailing from the cradle of the American auto industry, echoed similar themes this weekend, editorializing: “Designing walkable streets and public places is important to building healthy, livable cities that attract talented employees, innovative businesses and creative entrepreneurs.”

Also, several lawmakers responded in the wake of the report.

Newspaper editorial boards urge action on repairing bridges

Pittsburgh Bridge Originally uploaded by mikeyexists to Flickr.

In the days since our comprehensive bridge report (The Fix We’re In For) was released, at least one governor has promised action and several newspaper editorials have urged their states to prioritize repair and address the growing backlog of deficient bridges.

In Pennsylvania, with the worst bridges in the country, there was little surprise that the report would make big headlines. New Governor Tom Corbett told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that his transportation secretary will be creating a task force to look at the issue and come up with funding strategies to repair bridges — even telling the Tribune Review he’d consider selling state-owned liquor stores to pay for it. He’s also pledging to continue an accelerated bridge repair program created under former Governor Ed Rendell that has helped in recent years.

Today, the Post Gazette published an editorial on the issue focusing on what the state can do to help move Pennsylvania down the rankings in the coming years.

As if Gov. Tom Corbett doesn’t have enough financial challenges, last week brought a reminder of another problem that is not going away and will only get worse. According to Transportation for America, a coalition of groups working for national transportation reform, Pennsylvania still leads the nation in structurally deficient highway bridges.

What is depressing about this finding issued last Wednesday is that Gov. Ed Rendell made a priority of fixing bridges. By selling bonds and using federal stimulus funding, the Rendell administration did a lot of good work on bridges, without which the situation would be more dire. But, as this report shows, it’s hard to make up for years of neglect…

…The fact that Pennsylvania remains No. 1 in bad bridges can’t be blamed on Mr. Corbett, but the headlines that would come if a Minneapolis-type bridge disaster happened here would be part of his legacy. This latest report is a reminder that finding creative funding for bridges isn’t just a challenge — it’s a necessity.

As the Post Gazette hints at, states have a lot of power within the federal framework to do a better job with repairing their bridges. As our report notes, states aren’t even required to spend all of their bridge repair money on bridges. But a large part of the solution to this problem will come from Congress and the next multi-year transportation bill. That bill must provide more funding for bridge repair and it should hold states accountable for fixing their bridges with that money.

Until then, states with older infrastructure and a large backlog of deficient bridges, like Pennsylvania, will be fighting this battle at a bit of a disadvantage.

(Ed. note: The Times-Picayune in New Orleans offered a similar editorial)

Smarter transportation case study #7: Bike sharing program in Pottstown, Pa.

A first-in-the-region bikesharing program has increased transportation options and improved public health in this town 40 miles outside Philadelphia.


Pottstown is a town of just over 20,000 people located about 40 miles northwest of Philadelphia. The community has struggled to find a new identity and revitalize its economy since the decline of the iron and steel industries. They have found some success leveraging the area’s convenient access to the Schuylkill River Trail, a multi-use trail that connects Philadelphia to nearby communities.

The Bike Pottstown bike sharing program was launched in June of 2008 with 30 beach cruiser bikes all painted yellow and accompanied by a lock and a basket. Managed by Preservation Pottstown, a local non-profit organization within the borough, the program operates six days a week out of Tri-County Bicycles, a local independently owned bike shop. Anyone with a valid ID can rent the bikes and ride anywhere in the Pottstown until the end of the day. The bikes are free of charge and by December 2009 had been shared over 2,000 times.

“Bike Pottstown is a community bike-share program,” said Tom Carroll, president of Preservation Pottstown. “By having it operate out of this location, and eventually out of others as well, it brings the program to more people in the community, and, hopefully, will bring more community support to the program.”

The only free bike sharing program in the greater Philadelphia region, Bike Pottstown has been featured in numerous newspapers, magazines and television news segments. The media attention has been a win-win for the community, bringing needed tourism and renewing local enthusiasm for bicycling as a source of exercise and transportation. Bike Pottstown is removing cars from the road, promoting physical fitness and providing residents with more options for commuting to work, although most use the program recreationally.

Bike Pottstown was able to get off the ground because of a $30,000 grant from the Pottstown Area Health and Wellness Foundation. The funding paid for the infrastructure study, bicycles and the first year of operating costs. Subsequent annual operating costs are paid for through promotional items, sponsorships and donations.

Bike Pottstown Facebook Page


Pottstown bike sharing bikes. Photo courtesy of Bike Pottstown.

—-

Editor’s Note: Our new report on smarter mobility demonstrates how existing and emerging technologies can squeeze more capacity from over-burdened highways, help commuters avoid traffic delays and expand and improve transportation options, all while saving money and creating jobs. Many of these smart transportation solutions are already fueling innovation throughout the country, through both the public and private sector. These 14 case studies from around the U.S. and the world demonstrate the community benefits smart mobility solutions are giving regions, cities, and businesses.

Read the ITS Case Study Series

Smarter transportation case study #3: Specialized Customer Information: Pittsburgh, Pa.

The ACCESS program in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania integrates non-profit and for-profit transit providers to maximize service for older residents and the disabled.


Harnessing technology makes it easier for some our most vulnerable neighbors – older adults and persons with disabilities – to use public transportation. Pittsburgh’s ACCESS project demonstrates how low-cost technology improves service, alleviates the concerns of waiting customers and saves money.

ACCESS is a door-to-door, advance reservation, shared ride transportation service serving primarily older adults and the disabled in Pittsburgh and the surrounding area. On-demand transportation services are provided from 6:00 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week, with additional hours on selected routes. There are no restrictions on the purpose or number of trips, but riders are required to share the vehicle with others.

The ACCESS network integrates several non-profit, for-profit and public transportation providers from 10 locations.

“People ride for a bunch of different reasons, which is good,” Gerry Miller, operations manager for Town and Country Transit, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “To have people with disabilities be able to live independently because of the service is a great thing.”

The agency has installed a low-cost, real-time information system to support drivers’ schedules and improve on-time arrivals. The system allows ACCESS to more easily make trip-by-trip eligibility determinations and provide detailed information to customers seeking fixed routes. ACCESS also generates automated telephone calls that announce arrival times for waiting customers.

ACCESS conducted a series of surveys to track customer satisfaction with the new system. In 2009, the average weekday ridership for ACCESS was 5,832.

For more information: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

—-

Editor’s Note: Our new report on smarter mobility demonstrates how existing and emerging technologies can squeeze more capacity from over-burdened highways, help commuters avoid traffic delays and expand and improve transportation options, all while saving money and creating jobs. Many of these smart transportation solutions are already fueling innovation throughout the country, through both the public and private sector. These 14 case studies from around the U.S. and the world demonstrate the community benefits smart mobility solutions are giving regions, cities, and businesses.

Read the ITS Case Study Series