Last week’s announcement of a $178 million federal grant to make track and infrastructure improvements along the Gulf Coast rail corridor represents the last major funding hurdle to restoring passenger rail service from New Orleans to Mobile, AL.
Residents of Mobile welcomed the Amtrak inspection train during a stop in February 2016. They are close to getting their wish.
It’s been a long journey.
Seven years ago in February, a special Amtrak inspection train rolled along the Gulf Coast corridor to both preview the route and build support for restoring passenger service that was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, nearly 11 years earlier. Making brief, 10-minute stops in Gulf Coast towns along the way, it was greeted by thousands of cheering residents clamoring for passenger rail to return. I was there in 2016, and—a little overwhelmed by the level of support—I wrote about seeing “rich people, poor people, black people, white people, young people, old people — all asking their elected leaders for the same thing: We want passenger rail back on the Gulf Coast.”
The last major funding barrier has been breached. Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker last week announced a $178.4 million federal grant to make a litany of infrastructure investments in the corridor, including track, sidings, signals, new platforms, and other improvements. We’re not quite at the end yet, but this grant caps off a decade of work by the Southern Rail Commission, local and state advocates, and Transportation for America.
We applaud @SenatorWicker for his leadership in creating the program to expand and improve our nation’s rail networks. We’re now on the cusp of seeing that dream become reality for the people of the Coastal South.https://t.co/vu8rirksRO
These improvements will allow new passenger service to start up in the first quarter of 2024, hopefully in time for Mardi Gras. Once launched, there will be two trains daily between New Orleans and Mobile, with stops in:
Bay St. Louis…
Gulfport…
Biloxi…
and Pascagoula.
About the grant
The grant is from the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program, which was created in the FAST Act (federal transportation authorization) in 2015. To secure federal funding for this specific project in a post-earmark world, T4America helped create a new national program to support it and other necessary infrastructure improvements for passenger service across the country. Washington state, California, Florida, and the District of Columbia also received CRISI grants in this batch.
The CRISI grant is the last major funding domino to fall, but everyone involved has committed resources along the way, which is perhaps the most important lesson from this story: The effort was both top-down and bottom-up. Partnerships across jurisdictions, state lines, and party lines made it possible. At the very center of that effort is our work with the Southern Rail Commission, a Congressionally established tri-state rail compact with members appointed by the governors of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
Mississippi and Louisiana were out front early, committing state money to match these federal grants. Norfolk Southern, CSX, the Port of Mobile, and Amtrak also committed money to the CRISI application to complete the required match. Amtrak is training crew and preparing equipment for running the new service. This is actually not the first CRISI grant awarded to the project, and another federal grant received years ago will help cover start-up operations costs (from the Restoration and Enhancement grant program.)
What’s next for Gulf Coast rail?
Most of this grant will go toward immediate construction on improving the right-of-way and sidings on trackage owned and used by CSX and Norfolk Southern freight railroads, improving on-time performance. Amtrak is paying for the ADA-accessible platform and siding in Mobile out of their own pocket, but if Mobile wants a proper station, they will either have to build it themselves or apply for one of the available grants for doing so. All the infrastructure work will have to be done in partnership with the freight railroads, so leaders in influential places will be leaning on them to get this vital work done as fast as possible.
These new infrastructure improvements are the last barrier standing in the way of people buying a ticket and riding the rails on the Gulf Coast once again. We expect to see trains running in spring 2024.
Win after win
The last eight years have been a tremendous success for new investments in passenger rail across the country. This effort in the Gulf Coast—and its champions like Senator Wicker—have created new opportunities and federal programs (like CRISI) that are having an impact all across the country.
We’re looking forward to detailing the longer, full story of T4America’s decades-long quest to restore Gulf Coast passenger rail in some future posts so other regions can learn from their example. There are numerous benefits to expanding and improving passenger rail service, which is precisely why T4America (and Smart Growth America) have focused on it over the years. It’s a great way to better connect residents to opportunity, expand their economies, lower emissions and protect the climate, and provide another clean, efficient option for getting around—all things which are at the heart of our collective mission.
All photos by Steve Davis / Transportation for America
Between all seven Class I freight railroad companies, the U.S. saw over 1,000 derailments in 2022. Norfolk Southern (the company responsible for the derailment in East Palestine) had 119 by itself. Other railways had even more, like BNSF which derailed 279 times in 2022. Derailments are harmful to the supply chain at best and record-setting environmental disasters at worst. The systemic problems within the freight industry that have led to derailments also have the side-effect of delaying passenger rail service.
Image by the National Transportation Safety Board via Wikimedia Commons.
Last May, we announced that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) was finally taking action to improve the on-time service and safety records of freight railroads. With the recent freight disasters in East Palestine, Ohio, Springfield, Ohio, and Calhoun County, Alabama, it would seem that the freight railroads have not learned their lesson.
“Inconsistent and unreliable rail service”
On top of the freight industry’s frequent derailments and propensity to skirt regulations, the quality of their normal service is at an all-time low. Last year the National Grain and Feed Association decried three of the largest nationwide freight carriers—Union Pacific, BNSF Railway, and Norfolk Southern—for delaying shipments, resulting in the shuttering of several flour mills and livestock facilities. These delays were also a major cause of the 2022 supply chain crisis.
To hear the Surface Transportation Board (STB) say it, the freight railroad industry provides “inconsistent and unreliable rail service” that has “continued to deteriorate” in recent years. As a result, the STB continues, “shippers cannot get their products to market on time or receive essential raw materials for their companies.” This is why shippers and their customers are some of the biggest critics of freight railroad companies.
Regulators at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and STB have the power to impose safety and performance regulations on freight railroads, so why does freight continue to get away with poor safety records and low performance?
Flying in the face of regulators
The FRA is responsible for regulating the railroad industry but lacks the resources to fulfill its mandate. FRA Administrator Amit Bose, although committed to making a difference, has neither the staff nor the funding he needs to proactively regulate the freight railroads. Between responding to frequent derailments and managing a $66+ billion grant and loan program, the agency is stretched thin. FRA resources have not kept pace with their increased authority, so regulators don’t have the tools they need to push freight railroads to develop their workforce, invest in safety technology, or conduct basic infrastructure maintenance.
The freight railroad industry, in turn, has lengthened trains and reduced their workforce, a common cost-cutting practice known as precision-scheduled railroading. Railroad industry labor leaders have noted that longer trains are unwieldy and make derailments more likely. A 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that train lengths increased across all seven Class I railroads, with some companies reporting average train lengths of 1.4 miles. The GAO, however, recommended only that FRA “work with railroads…to identify and reduce impacts of longer freight trains on highway-railroad crossings,” as FRA has little authority to do much else.
These issues are compounded by freight railroad companies’ refusal to provide basic information to federal regulators. In a filing before the STB in September, one freight railroad asserted that their rail traffic control data was confidential and proprietary and that turning it over would hinder their competitive advantage. This is simply not true, since anyone with a camera and enough time on their hands could collect most of the data that these companies claim to be secrets. But they use that line anyway, and FRA rarely has the legal authority to refute it. In the case cited above, STB only got access to the data after years of litigation.
But even when regulations exist and are enforced, they don’t work. While FRA can (and does) issue fines to freight rail companies that violate federal regulations, the penalties have little effect. Internally, freight railroad companies have long held the position that being fined by the FRA is just the cost of doing business. They factor it into their annual budgets.
Impacts on Amtrak service
Unreliable freight rail service means unreliable Amtrak service, since for the most part, Amtrak operates on tracks owned by freight companies. This problem is so pervasive that Amtrak has a dedicated page on its website to warn passengers about freight delays. They estimated that freight companies caused 900,000 minutes of delay for Amtrak passengers in 2021. Every Amtrak route outside the northeast corridor was delayed by freight trains more than 50 percent of the time in 2022.
On a personal note, I was recently on a Crescent train from DC to New Orleans to attend Amtrak’s announcement that they are pursuing new long-distance passenger rail service along the I-20 corridor from Atlanta to Dallas. But our trip was interrupted when a freight train derailed ahead of us, forcing us to disembark in Atlanta and delaying our trip.Like many passengers, I could not wait for my train to resume service, so I had to find an alternate route to my destination. I could see how that experience would make someone hesitate before riding another Amtrak train.
How can we expect to build out a national network of passenger rail if passengers cannot reliably reach their destinations even half the time? Money is not the issue. In fact, federal funding for rail remains at an all-time high. But no amount of passenger rail funding can prevent delays caused by other companies. With freight trains in the way, Amtrak is going nowhere.
Getting back on track
In recent months, federal regulators have taken some more aggressive measures to ensure safe, on-time freight rail performance. For example, the FRA recently proposed a rule that would require most trains to be staffed by at least two crewmembers. This would eliminate the most egregious instances of understaffing. But why stop there? Freight railroads—as the Biden administration has emphasized—are a crucial pillar of our national supply chain.
Recent bipartisan proposals are a good start. The Railway Safety Act introduced in the Senate by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and J.D. Vance (R-OH) and the RAIL Act introduced by Ohio Representatives in the House would tighten safety regulations: requiring two person crews, expanding the classification for highly hazardous flammable trains, and imposing bigger fines on companies that violate these rules.
But these proposals still leave FRA without the tools it needs to prevent future derailments. Congress should pass legislation granting FRA the staff, resources, and authority to proactively regulate the freight industry as the national utility and public safety hazard it is. One way to do this would be to give FRA a stronger mandate to go after “proprietary” freight railroad data.
Congress should also give Amtrak stronger authority to ensure on-time service despite freight delays on its National Network. The Rail Passenger Fairness Act (S.1500 and H.R.2937), introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. in 2021 but not passed, is a good model for future legislation.We do not need to be held hostage by freight railroads. After all, we gave them the property to build their tracks. So let’s get back on them.
Over a month ago, we explained why freight railroads CSX and Norfolk Southern (NS) were trying to halt the return of passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast—an effort that could hinder passenger rail service across the country. Well, CSX is still at it, and their easily-disputed claims are proof that freight railroads have had free rein to stand in the path of passenger rail for far too long.
The long-anticipated return of passenger rail service on the Gulf Coast is moving forward once again. But there’s still a ways to go.
There’s simply no better way to illustrate our point than with a video, so here’s yet another look at the supposedly “busy” (according to freight railroad CSX) Gulf Coast corridor. Amtrak only wants to run two round-trip trains on this track between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., but this video documents train activity from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Pay close attention to that bridge. In the latest Surface Transportation Board (STB) hearing, CSX claimed that the Pascagoula Bridge poses an obstacle to the return of passenger rail service because the bridge is “always down.” But from where we’re standing, the bridge is up quite a bit.
This is yet another easily contested argument presented by CSX to derail the wildly popular return of passenger rail service to the Gulf Coast. Given all the time they had to prepare, we might expect them to come up with something a bit more concrete. But unfortunately, the truth is they historically haven’t had to come up with strong arguments to get their way.
Tactics like these aren’t exclusive to CSX, and it’s important to note that freight railroads alone aren’t the only thing holding passenger rail back. But CSX’s bad faith arguments continue to show why it’s important to compile rail data and hold freight railroads accountable. Freight has been able to claim tracks like the ones running through Pascagoula are “just too busy” for far too long, and passenger rail service has suffered across the country as a result. With the new funds under the 2021 infrastructure law and climate needs only growing stronger, it’s time to make passenger rail a more available resource for all.
Money from the finalized $1.2 trillion infrastructure deal is already flowing out to states and metro areas who are plugging it right into projects both already underway and on the horizon. After covering six things the administration should do immediately to maximize this mammoth infusion of unexpected cash, here’s a longer look at some of the law’s incremental or notable successes, with the aim of equipping the administration and advocates alike to steer this money toward the best possible outcomes.
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.
If you’re looking for good news in the infrastructure bill, passenger rail probably represents the most encouraging and exciting inclusion in the bill. After being woefully neglected over the past 40 years, passenger rail is one of the biggest winners, receiving a historic investment that totals just north of $100 billion over five years. (All of which is thanks to impressive bipartisan work by the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this summer—read our much more detailed take on all the passenger rail provisions here.)
This will provide significant opportunities to reshape American passenger rail in a transformative way. With the record investment, there is ample opportunity to improve safety and state of repair for existing rail infrastructure, make existing service more reliable, and support new, expanded passenger rail service. Communities near rail and lacking in intercity mobility options could connect their community with affordable intercity mobility and integrate passenger rail service with first- and last-mile community connections.
But these improvements are not going to happen automatically nor will they happen easily. The Biden administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak and others will have to be very aggressive in ushering this money out the door and supporting state and local plans for those improvements to see the projects that have been promised or mentioned in breathless news coverage come to pass. If the administration fails on this count, this could turn out just like the 2009 Recovery Act, where money sat idle or was even declined by governors. On top of that, freight railroads will be opposed to the improvements in some places, just like they’ve fought or negotiated in bad faith against the publicly and politically popular plan to restore passenger rail along the Gulf Coast.
Additionally, Amtrak’s mission and governing structure have been adjusted to bring a greater focus on expanding and improving the national network. For the majority of Amtrak’s existence, the mission of passenger rail service was to justify investments with performance and operate to make a profit, no matter the cost to user experience, and no matter that nearly every other transportation mode fails to turn a profit. This hampered innovation and opportunity to build and retain rail ridership. Small but significant changes in the infrastructure bill reorient Amtrak’s mission towards the value of the customer and the importance of connecting those customers across urban and rural communities.
While the bill lays out goals for an Amtrak Board of Directors that better represents a diversity of perspectives and communities across the Amtrak system, as we noted last week, those slots need to be filled immediately if the administration is serious about improving passenger rail service and taking advantage of the funding and this historic opportunity.
By reinvigorating passenger rail infrastructure and user experience, this bill could lay the groundwork for other future advancements, including high-speed rail.
As we’ve noted, the bill pours the lion’s share of the funds into the same old highway programs with few substantial changes. And states are already responding to their hard-won flexibility and historic amounts of cash by supercharging previously planned or ill-conceived projects. But there are some notable ways the bill recalibrates the highway program for the long run.
First, a portion of every state’s funding will go to new programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions, improving transportation system resiliency, and congestion relief, in addition to existing money devoted to Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) dollars. States and metro areas must also now dedicate a portion of their planning money towards Complete Streets planning and implementation. (2.5 percent of each state’s State Planning Research dollars and 2.5 percent of their metropolitan planning dollars.) This money will be dwarfed by the hundreds of billions going into streets and roads being designed the same old way, but this is an incremental step toward elevating active transportation and livable streets within the transportation program.
Within the largest pot of funding that states and metro areas control (the Surface Transportation Block Grant program), the amount set aside for smaller but vital transportation projects like bikeways, new sidewalks, safe routes to school, and micromobility was increased from 1.5 percent up to 10 percent. This bill also lets local municipalities control more of this funding directly by increasing the share of that 10 percent that they directly control from 50 up to 59 percent
Lastly, while the $1 billion Reconnecting Communities program will be overpowered by hundreds of billions in highway funds perpetuating the very problem this program aims to solve, its inclusion is an important step toward repairing the damage of past highway projects and is worth celebrating. For the first time, Congress is acknowledging the racist and damaging history of highway building, laying the groundwork for future efforts and also providing a way for advocates to spotlight how some of the worst excesses of the past are still going on today in many urban areas. But devoting any federal dollars to tearing down divisive infrastructure plus the means to stitch communities together again is a vital step on the path toward reorienting the highway program to serving people and communities with the transportation system.
Most of the headlines and coverage about transit focused on the fact that it will receive historic levels of investment over the next five years from the infrastructure deal. That’s certainly good news, but that also glosses over some important shortcomings.
First off, unlike the Senate Commerce Committee did with passenger rail, the Senate Banking Committee never actually drafted a transit title to incorporate into the infrastructure bill. This preserved the transit policy status quo in amber for the next five years. Secondly, while the House’s superior INVEST Act proposal focused on trying to maximize transit service, frequency, and access, this bill failed to fix the current priority of keeping costs down no matter the effects on people when it comes to service, ridership, and access to transit. T4America is still looking to Congress to redress that wrong within the still-in-progress budget reconciliation bill (the Build Back Better Act), ensuring that public transportation, a fundamental backbone in our communities and a lifeline towards affordable housing opportunities, is properly funded.
Thirdly, while the $39 billion is a historic amount for transit and many excellent projects will be built because of it, this amount should have been higher. $10 billion was cut from the original infrastructure deal’s framework agreement with the White House back in June.
While we weren’t anticipating the Senate increasing the share for transit, the infrastructure bill did maintain the historic practice of devoting at least 20 percent towards public transportation and did not decrease it. On a positive note, the bill emphasized improving the nation’s transit state of good repair, plus improving transit accessibility via a grant program to retrofit transit stations for mobility and accessibility.
Although the infrastructure bill continues to heavily fund conventional highway and road expansions, digging us into an ever deeper hole of traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, it is also the federal government’s biggest investment yet in climate adaptation and protection and recognizes the severity of the impacts of climate change which are already being experienced across America.
The new PROTECT program dedicates $7.3 billion (~2.9 percent of each state’s share of all highway funds) and $1.4 billion in competitive grants to shore up and improve the resilience of the transportation network, including highways, public transportation, rail, ports, and natural barrier infrastructure. Knowing where climate- and weather-related events are likely to be worse is a vital first step, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will invest $492 million in flood mapping and water modeling which could inform future infrastructure planning and investment.
The existing Alternative Fuels program is expanded and recalibrated to focus more, though not exclusively, on zero-emission vehicles and related infrastructure. A new Carbon Reduction program will dedicate ~2.5 percent of each state’s share of highway funds (~$6.4 billion total) to support active transportation, public transit, congestion pricing, and other strategies to reduce carbon emissions. (Although the core highway program will continue making emissions worse.)
All of this represents a positive first step in federal recognition of the severity of the impacts of climate change, but it is still not scaled to the level of risk that we face, though we applaud Congress for taking a bipartisan step on climate change and we hope to see more.
When it comes to safety, a new federal safety program, even a large one, is not what we need. The entire $300+ billion transportation program should be a safety program, with safety for all users as the highest and ultimate consideration in every single case on every single project. A transportation system that cannot safely move people from A to B should be viewed as a failure, regardless of whatever other benefits it brings.
With that backdrop in mind, there are key safety provisions that ensure a fairer shake for vulnerable road users. If injuries to and deaths of people walking, biking or using assistive devices exceed 15 percent of a state’s total traffic injuries and fatalities, then that state must dedicate at least 15 percent of their Highway Safety Improvement Program dollars towards proven strategies to make those people safer and lower that share. This helps put some teeth into highway safety dollars to target investments where they are critically needed, versus typical lip-service and disingenuous investments sold as safety projects that are really about increasing capacity, speed, or other goals.
The new Safe Streets and Roads for All program is a competitive grant program allowing applicants to seek funding to better plan and implement Vision Zero strategies in their communities and regions. Once deemed a niche concept, the Vision Zero safety framework has gained some prominence. For it to go mainstream, it will need to be fundamental to all highway spending.
Looking ahead
Though this bill leaves much to be desired, there are still some notable changes that will start to shape the direction of state, regional, and local transportation programs. The key will be how they are used. In the coming weeks, T4America will highlight key opportunities to better administer, deliver, and shape the US transportation program for generations to come.
Because of the shortcomings in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)’s actual policy, an enormous amount of pressure now rests on USDOT and Secretary Buttigieg to deliver on the administration’s promises. But the good news is that there are scores of actions that USDOT can take to deliver positive outcomes for equity, climate, safety, state of repair, and enhancing community connections.
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.
After 200+ weeks of #InfrastructureWeek, Congress was sorely overdue to take action on surface transportation reauthorization since the FAST Act was fast expiring in 2021. The House took up the challenge by crafting and passing the bold five-year INVEST Act in July, which would have moved the needle in major ways. But the Senate failed to produce the same kind of transformative bill, instead playing the politics of “compromise” and “bipartisanship” in what would become the infrastructure deal as we know it (the IIJA).
With the conclusion of #InfrastructureWeek on Capitol Hill and Congress pivoting to other issues of national interest, the media spotlight on the US transportation program will quickly dim.
This is unfortunate, because in many ways, the real work on infrastructure is just beginning—especially for USDOT and the administration. Advocates and the media are failing to grasp that the first year of transportation funding from the IIJA is already flowing out to states and metro areas, supercharging project lists that were decided upon years ago in some cases. And states have made it clear that they plan to maximize the use of the flexibility that they have won from Congress to spend this money how they deem it in their interest.
Using this historic infusion of infrastructure funding to make meaningful progress towards equity, climate change, and fostering community economic opportunities is going to be an uphill battle, but that is what the Biden administration has promised. They certainly have the talent and the expertise to make it happen, but Secretary Buttigieg will need to exercise his authority and the flexibility of US transportation policy to realize these outcomes.
Over the next few weeks, we will unpack the details on a range of actions that could be taken administratively to further our three principles and national priorities of economic development, equity, and climate change mitigation. For now, here are six immediate and important actions that would make a big difference:
1. A new commitment to passenger rail needs equally committed leaders.
As the country begins a heavy investment in intercity passenger rail and Amtrak, its Board of Directors is made up of members whose terms have expired (other than Transportation Secretary Buttigieg and Amtrak CEO Flynn). It is time for the President to nominate a new and current Board to lead Amtrak through this unprecedented opportunity to create a world class passenger rail system and push Amtrak to deliver on a new customer driven service delivery mission.
We cannot and should not accept these fatalities as simply a part of everyday life in America. No one will accomplish this alone. It will take all levels of government, industries, advocates, engineers and communities across the country working together toward the day when family members no longer have to say good-bye to loved ones because of a traffic crash.
—Secretary Buttigieg
With a call to action on safety, the USDOT should bring more attention to the impact of roadway design on safety, including the removal of references to the disproven 40-year old study that claimed 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error and discouraging grantees and the press from using the term ‘accident’ as opposed to ‘crash.’ Furthermore, the USDOT can look to prioritize safety investments across all funding streams (more on that next).
3. Bake important priorities into the many competitive grant programs.
Use competitive grant programs to reward project sponsors that have made a dedicated commitment to safety, state of repair, climate, and equity and to focus the sponsors that have not on addressing those issues. For example, those states who set regressive safety targets could be restricted from getting funding for safety-oriented projects.
4. Require clearer data for the public on transportation emissions.
Track climate emissions per capita from transportation by state and publish results and trends online.
5. Consider the poor track record of transportation models.
Require major NEPA (environmental review) documents to include a report on the past accuracy of any transportation demand modeling used, as well as documenting the expected induced demand from projects.
6. Streamline the arduous process of applying for competitive grants.
The IIJA also establishes several new competitive grant programs. To ensure they are accessible to communities of all sizes and capacity, USDOT should create an easier, more automated process for receiving applications and benefit-cost analyses for all competitive grant programs.
How this historic bill gets implemented and how the hundreds of billions in new transportation spending is spent will determine how far we are able to move the needle on key goals. We will continue to unpack more ways that the administration, states, metros, and advocates can engage in the implementation of the IIJA to produce a transportation system that is safer, cleaner, and more effective at connecting people to jobs and opportunity.
The current trend of more driving will make it harder for us to reach our emissions goals. Making public transit a more convenient and reliable option so people can access the things they need while taking shorter or fewer car trips is one way to reverse the trend of more driving.
This post was written by Rayla Bellis, Director of Thriving Communities at Smart Growth America, and Abi Grimminger, T4America Communications Associate. It’s the first of a series of posts on this topic—find the full set here.
Transportation accounts for the largest share of emissions in the US, and cars and trucks are responsible for nearly all of it. To fully decarbonize transportation by 2050, we need to transition to electric vehicles (EVs). But that transition is still decades away, and in the meantime the cumulative impacts of more driving and more emissions will make it harder for us to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. We cannot afford to wait until the 2040s to start bending the curve on transportation emissions: we need to take real action now. And we won’t get there if we continue to do what we’ve been doing: driving more and more (measured as vehicle miles traveled or VMT).
We need to give people better options for getting around without needing a car. That means public transit, and a lot more of it. Public transit isn’t a reliable option for most Americans. While about 80 percent of people in the US live within areas classified as “urban” (which includes the suburbs of urban centers), less than 10 percent of Americans live within walking distance of reliable, high quality transit that comes every 15 minutes. And 45 percent of Americans have no access to transit at all.
Yet the federal government gives transit just 20 percent of surface transportation funding, and the rest goes to highways (which often funds highway expansions that make public transit even harder to use). Transit agencies can use this funding to repair and maintain their systems and to build out new services—but they can’t use it to help cover the cost of operating their systems, which accounts for two-thirds of a transit agency’s total expenses. This has put an enormous strain on agencies’ budgets, particularly as they continue to suffer from reduced fare revenue as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
We can afford to do better
In partnership with Third Way, Transportation for America recently analyzed 288 of the largest urbanized areas in the U.S. to help us understand just how much we would need to increase transit operating funding in those regions to enable residents to drive less. 60 percent of all driving happens in these 288 urbanized areas. While the scale of CO2 reduction we need isn’t something transit—or EVs, or any other single strategy—can fulfill alone, it turns out we can make real headway with an achievable increase in transit spending.
While more than two-thirds of the urbanized areas analyzed currently spend less than $100 per person on transit operations, there’s a correlation between more transit operations funding and lower amounts of driving in these metro areas. Our analysis found less driving per capita in the areas that spend more on transit operations per person (keep an eye out for a full report soon with more detail on our methodology and analysis results). That means that if we increase operating spending per person across those urbanized areas and continue to scale that spending up over time, we can expect to see meaningful reductions in driving.
We estimate that if we doubled transit spending in all of those urbanized areas by 2050, VMT in those regions will be 6.1 percent below its current growth trajectory. If we triple our investment in transit operations, VMT would be 10.7 percent lower. That’s less time spent commuting, less time in traffic, and less emissions warming our planet.
In fact, doubling or tripling transit spending would be roughly equivalent to taking every single gas-powered car off the road for about an entire day every two months for the next 30 years. If we fail to reach our goals of 100% electric vehicles by 2050, it would be closer to a day every single month with no emissions whatsoever from gas-powered vehicles.
VMT reduction impacts of increased transit spending
The 288 urbanized areas we analyzed spent $48 billion on transit operations in 2019.
By 2050, if we ↧ ↧
By 2050, we would increase annual transit spending to...
And see VMT reduction across those urbanized areas in 2050 of...
...double transit operating spending in each urbanized area
$94 billion
-6.1%
(143 billion fewer miles per year than projected)
...triple transit operating spending in each urbanized area
$120 billion
-10.7%
(250 billion fewer miles per year than projected)
Estimated using 2019 transit operating spending from the National Transit Database and 2019 per capita VMT from the Federal Highway Administration. Scenarios doubling or tripling transit spending were capped at a maximum of $800 per person in each urbanized area.
While we won’t be able to double or triple transit operating spending overnight, these are investments we can—and need to—start making now. Unfortunately, the federal government is continuing to turn a blind eye to the need for better transit funding if we ever want to reach our climate goals. Though the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act increased federal spending on transit, this legislation provides an historic amount of money for highways and prioritizes car travel. That will encourage driving-oriented road projects and development decisions that make our investments in transit less effective and the service we do have more difficult to access. A transit stop that’s dangerous or difficult to reach is a transit stop that will be underutilized, only being used by those people willing to endure the difficulty or risk. A broad coalition of stakeholders is urging $10 billion more for transit in the budget reconciliation package, which can be used to cover operating costs. Though transit will ultimately need much more than this to enable us to meet our climate goals, $10 billion is an important step in the right direction.
There’s more to this story
It’s not just about pumping more money into transit—how we provide transit service matters. In order to reduce the amount we drive, we’ll need to ensure that transit effectively connects people to the places they need to go. We’ll be doing a series of blog posts analyzing what it would take to build a national transit system that helps get us to our climate goals.
A statement from Transportation for America chairman and former mayor of Meridian, MS, John Robert Smith, on the Surface Transportation Board (STB)’s recently expanded capacity:
“Transportation for America commends the Surface Transportation Board for creating a new passenger rail desk to expedite slow decision-making that often impedes the expansion of reliable passenger rail service. While freight railways are critically important to our nation’s logistics network and the effort to reduce transportation emissions, these companies too often serve as a hurdle to delivering passenger rail that meets 21st century needs.
“Although Congress gave Amtrak the right to operate passenger trains over all freight right-of-way, many freight railroads have simply said ‘no’ to proposed passenger service. Amtrak’s only hope for resolution laid at the STB.
“Slow STB decisions—due to limited capacity—benefit those standing in the way of passenger rail in the long-term, and end up discouraging many areas from even considering passenger rail as a solution to mobility needs. We are happy to see the STB take steps to address this problem and hope to see more and more reliable passenger rail as a result.”
Expanding and improving our nation’s passenger rail network to bring better, more reliable passenger rail service to more people is one of the best ways to improve access for millions of Americans in big urban areas and small rural ones alike. The House transportation bill takes some important steps to balance passenger rail with the rest of our transportation investments. Here are the details.
Within the reauthorization proposal released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week is the Transforming Rail by Accelerating Investment Nationwide Act (TRAIN Act), which lays out ambitious investment priorities and important reforms specifically for the rail component of our national surface transportation reauthorization. The TRAIN Act authorizes an increase in passenger rail funding to five times current levels, for a total of $60 billion total over the next five years. It establishes new programs to help fund capital improvements for existing trains, while making existing programs more effective and usable. In contrast to Congress’s recent attempts to peel off the Northeast Corridor and cancel vital long-distance routes, it re-establishes the centrality of a complete national network of short- and long-distance rail service, including state-supported routes. And it gives Amtrak the legal tools it needs to address bad faith interference from freight carriers.
Capital investment
Passenger rail services often require sizable capital improvements to track, stations, or rolling stock upon startup or on an ongoing basis to keep the service viable. Historically, these hefty expenses have come from Amtrak’s annual appropriation and from states. More recently, beginning with the 2009 Recovery Act, a growing share of passenger rail capital projects have been funded by competitive grant programs administered by the USDOT.
The TRAIN Act authorizes $5.2 billion annually for rail capital improvements which will allow us to make our national passenger train network more reliable, while providing better service and improving the state of good repair across the network. After several years of legislators making attempts to peel off the Northeast Corridor and neglect the National Network, this bill reinforces the balance between them, while also including commuter rail in the capital grant program for the first time. Plus, with an 80 percent federal share for capital grants and a 90 percent share in the new PRIME grant program, local matching dollars will activate more federal investment per dollar than the existing 50-50 split, making rail projects more competitive for local funding when compared to highways that have 90 percent of their costs covered.
Federal loan programs for rail will also become more effective and user friendly by providing funding to offset risk premiums that borrowers must currently pay the government as insurance against possible default.
Operating support
Operating support is key for many new or expanded services. It may not be as flashy as a new station or high speed track, but it helps make tickets affordable and expand the reach of high quality passenger rail across the country.
The bill authorizes the Restoration and Enhancement grant program (REG) program at $20 million annually, a competitive grant program that provides a share of operating support for new or expanded passenger train services. The REG program provides a declining share of operating support to help new and expanded services get established and build a base of riders before transitioning completely to local funds for operating support. As an example, this program is helping the Southern Rail Commission get the new Gulf Coast service restored and established. The grants will enable the three-state commission to offset 80 percent of operating support in the first year of operations with federal funds. In the second and third years, federal funds will cover 60 and 40 percent of operating support respectively. State and local funds will make up the balance during the three-year period.
Shifting trips in a corridor or a city from highways or airports to passenger rail helps reduce emissions, mitigate climate change, and improve air quality. In another important set of changes, funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ) could be used to pay for operating support on transportation networks that improve air quality, including state-supported Amtrak routes. Currently, CMAQ funding can’t be used for passenger rail operating support, and its use for transit is mainly for capital projects and procurement, and limited fare reductions when local air quality is worst.
Amtrak
Amtrak, America’s primary passenger rail operator, was established by Congress to take over passenger operations from the private railroads. Amtrak has received an annual appropriation from Congress every year of its existence for capital and operating expenses, though the adequacy of federal support has often been unreliable or insufficient.
The bill authorizes $5.8 billion annually for Amtrak, roughly triple what Amtrak currently gets today. This includes, on average, $2.6 billion for the route between Washington, DC, and Boston, and $3.25 billion for the rest of the National Network, a portion of which would be used to reduce costs for state-supported trains.
Amtrak’s mission gets some important reforms, to provide reliable national intercity passenger rail service while meeting the needs of all passengers and the national workforce. The bill would also reform the railroad’s board of directors to better reflect Amtrak’s stakeholders. Among the eight presidential appointees, seats would be reserved for mayors and governors from cities along the Northeast Corridor, and the National Network. A seat would be reserved for a representative from Amtrak labor, and two seats would be reserved for members with a history of regular Amtrak ridership and understanding of passenger rail service. This would better align the company’s priorities with the needs of the traveling public, employees, and the communities the trains stop in.
Preference over freight service and a right of access to the freight railroad network was fundamental to Amtrak’s creation. Because it still is critical for its continued viability as a national passenger carrier,, the TRAIN Act empowers Amtrak to seek relief in the federal court system when host railroads delay its trains. When Amtrak seeks to operate new trains, or more trains, over a route owned by a freight railroad, the bill provides a faster process to resolve any disputes between Amtrak and the freight railroad over costs and any disruption to freight service. As an example of how this is necessary, when Amtrak was negotiating with CSX for their right-of-way along the Gulf Coast to restore passenger service there, CSX first came to the table with a dollar figure that was so large as to defy rational explanation.
Many Amtrak trains operate overnight and cover long distances. Access to healthful and quality food is important. The bill ends the current disparity between coach and sleeping car passengers. It requires that Amtrak make all food available to all passengers, regardless of accommodation or ticket class, on long distance trains. The bill would still allow meals to be included in the cost of a sleeping car fare, but ensures other passengers the right to purchase the food that is currently only available to sleeping car passengers. The bill also recognizes that food and beverage service may not make a profit on its own, but contributes to the overall viability of the service, and removes legislative language that had required Amtrak to minimize losses directly associated with food and beverage service on its trains.
These reforms to how our country funds passenger rail improvements and operations, coupled with reforms to Amtrak, will bring a renaissance of passenger train development over the next several years that will pay dividends long into the future.
This post was written by Andrew Justus, Smart Growth America policy associate.
After two straight years of the Trump administration pushing to eliminate all funding for building or improving public transportation systems, Congress is right now deciding how much funding to provide for transit in the FY19 budget. To make sure Congress knows they need to continue rejecting these proposed cuts, T4America is circulating a sign-on letter for organizations and elected officials.
Communities across the country are using transportation as a powerful tool to boost their local economies, whether by remaking the streetscapes on Main Street to better support local businesses, investing in public transit to improve access to jobs, or revitalizing a downtown anchored by an Amtrak station that connects to other communities. Federal transportation funding plays a key role in these efforts, and many communities have raised their own local tax dollars with the expectation that the feds would continue to be a reliable partner in their efforts.
However, unlike past presidents from both parties, the Trump administration has proposed to cut and/or eliminate the federal programs that invest in these strategies for local economic competitiveness. These cuts would result in canceled transit projects, less vibrant communities, and many people stranded without options for getting to work and other necessities. This would pull the rug out from approximately 40 cities that were fully expecting the federal government to share around 50 percent of the cost—many of which have already raised new transportation revenues from voters at the ballot box.
Congress is in the annual process of putting together the FY19 appropriations bills and they are deciding right now how much funding to provide for these vital programs. We need to join our voices together and urge them to prioritize investments that support local communities, public transportation and passenger rail service.
We are organizing a sign-on letter for local or community organizations and local elected officials to call for robust investment in these programs. Sign this letter of support that we will deliver to House and Senate appropriators.
The letter urges Congress to provide robust funding for transit capital grants, the BUILD program (which replaces TIGER), and various passenger rail programs. As our letter says:
We want all American communities, large and small, across the country to benefit from a multimodal transportation network. We want to rebuild and improve our transportation infrastructure and that begins by ensuring that projects and programs in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act are fully funded and that the administration’s proposed cuts to key federal transportation programs—including the BUILD (previously TIGER) program, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Investment Grants (CIG), and long-distance passenger rail programs—are defeated and funding for these programs are secured or enhanced.
Note: For the wonks among you who want to know all the finer points and funding levels, the letter calls for maintaining authorized funding levels of federal transportation programs in the FY19 appropriations process. Specifically:
Fund the Federal Transit Administration transit capital investment grants program at or above the FY18 level of $2.645 billion.
Continue supporting the 56 projects in 41 communities that are anticipating federal transit funding by requiring the USDOT to sign Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs) for these projects, advance them through the pipeline, and obligate these dollars so construction can begin. This funding is critical to all future rail and bus rapid transit projects.
Fund the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program at or above the FY18 level of $1.5 billion. This fiercely competitive program (formerly known as TIGER) is one of the few ways that local communities of almost any size can directly receive federal dollars for their priority transportation projects.
Provide funding for Amtrak’s national network at or above the FY18 level of $1.292 billion and $650 million for the Northeast Corridor.
Fund the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure Safety and Improvement (CRISI) grants at or above the FY18 level of $592 million.
And lastly, fund the Restoration and Enhancement (R&E) grants for passenger rail at or above the FY18 level of $20 million.
As a valued member, Transportation for America is dedicated to providing you pertinent information. This includes news articles to inform your work. Check out a list of stories you may have missed last week.
“Infrastructure borrowing drops as U.S. states await” details on President Trump’s infrastructure plan. (Reuters)
Amid growing frustration with the lack of details from the Trump administration about their infrastructure plan, Congressional committees are moving ahead gathering input and drafting their own plans. (The Hill)
The Atlantic Magazine dives into why Congressional Republicans are having trouble passing a Fiscal-Year 2018 budget resolution and what it means for their legislative agenda, including tax reform. (The Atlantic)
The Federal Rail Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have withdrawn a proposed regulation from the Obama administration that would have required railroad and truck companies to test employees for sleep apnea. (USA Today)
Senators from New York and New Jersey have prevented confirmation of certain U.S. DOT nominees because of a dispute with U.S. DOT on the amount of federal involvement in the Gateway project that would build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River between New Jersey and New York City. (Cetus/Wall Street Journal)
U.S. DOT has announced the winners $79 million in FASTLANE/INFRA grant awards for small projects. Awards for large projects under FASTLANE/INFRA have been delayed until the fall and U.S. DOT is requiring entities seeking awards for large projects to resubmit their application. (Progressive Railroading)
Chicago is the busiest rail hub in the United States. Every day, nearly 500 freight and 760 passenger trains pass through the region. Many of those nearby cities connected via rail have benefited from developing the areas around their stations (read about a few in our 2013 report, The Little Cities That Could), and Chicago itself will soon see a large-scale renovation of its own Union Station. But these assets and local economies are seldom talked about or considered as a whole. That’s a mistake according to a recent OECD report that found that in order to grow, leaders in the Greater Chicagoland region — Northeast Illinois, Northwest Indiana, and Southeast Wisconsin — must better coordinate.
“Regional economic development is the way of the future” says Kelly O’Brien, director of the Alliance for Regional Development, which hosts a regular series of “quarterly conversations” to support improved collaboration among the region’s economic development interests. The group mirrors efforts of regional partnerships like those in Maryland and Virginia, where leaders have worked together on economic development initiatives, or Pennsylvania and Ohio, which collaborate on workforce development issues.
On June 10th, we had the chance to join leaders from the greater Chicagoland region — including Illinois, Northwest Indiana, Southeast Wisconsin, and even Michigan — at the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning for one of these conversations, this one focused on intercity rail & freight movement. Transportation for America Chair John Robert Smith joined the day to facilitate a panel about the economic value of passenger rail. Among the highlights, we heard that:
Beyond the commercial development opportunities promised by passenger rail investment, there are also huge potential benefits to be realized by other sectors of the economy; in total, the passenger rail manufacturing supply chain provides over 90,000 jobs in the Unites States, 60% of which are in the Midwest. (See the full report from the Environmental Law and Policy Center)
Leaders from across freight industries are counting on the unprecedented $1 billion dollar CREATE program to address one of the country’s biggest, most problematic freight rail bottlenecks that affects the movement of passengers and goods across the country.
Northwest Indiana is readying land to replace pockets of postindustrial decline with thriving transit-oriented development. The region is also planning for a new, commuter rail line extension of the state’s existing South Shore Line into Chicago. (See the Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority website for more information)
New research from T4America member UIC Urban Transportation Center proves what many passenger rail advocates already know: leaders from across the industry agree that more investment is needed.
While O’Brien states that supporting collaboration “can feel like pushing a boulder up a hill” at times, the connections are being made; the day’s first panel featured leaders from the Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation who are working in lockstep to more efficiently own, maintain, and operate their equipment, and collaborating through the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.
Though a wide range of groups was represented in the meeting, leaders invoked the need for even more voices supporting these investments: such as developers, tourism leaders, the manufacturing community, and state legislatures.
“We are cooperating more than ever before, but we are still missing key players” said Tim Hoeffner, an MDOT leader who also chairs the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission. “we need to better harness the voices of local leaders,” he said.
At Transportation for America, amplifying the voices of local leaders is central to our mission. And we can’t do it without your help. For more information about getting involved in the Midwest or to recommend a local leader, contact Erin Evenhouse, Midwest Outreach Manager, at erin.evenhouse@t4america.org.
We can do more, together.
The current plan for the Midwest Regional Rail System. Photo Courtesy of the Indiana Passenger Rail Alliance
Today, the White House released President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 (FY17) budget proposal, the final of his presidency. This budget adheres to the $1.07 trillion spending cap that resulted from the bipartisan two-year budget deal agreed to last November. The President’s budget proposal either falls in line with or exceeds FAST Act funding levels, increases transit and rail funding, and funds TIGER (the FAST Act does not authorize the program), among other programs. The budget also calls for the creation of a 21st Century Regions program, a clean communities competitive grant program and funds the President’s 21st Century Clean Transportation Plan.
Speaker Ryan (R-WI) has asked congressman to maintain the funding levels agreed to last November, though there are signals that some may seek additional cuts.
The US Senate continues to debate the federal surface transportation bill this week, with a series of votes taken last night by the full Senate. Individual senators filed over 200 amendments and T4America continues to track the latest developments on those amendments. We have compiled a brief update on where things stand and provide information on three amendments that we know would spur innovation, access and local control.
**It is rumored that another manager’s amendment package will be offered in the near future. T4A will update this information as needed.
Transportation Funding Timeline Update: Transportation funding expires this Friday and the House announced this morning that they intend to pass a 3-month extension to match the Senate’s; setting up a new October 29 transportation funding deadline.
Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) introduced what is expected to be the first of potentially two or more manager’s amendment packages. Manager’s packages serve as legislative vehicles to modify a piece of legislation in committee or on the floor, wholesale. This first manager’s package makes a number of changes, including maintaining the historic 80/20 highway and transit funding split; increases funding for the FTA High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program by $100 million (paid for by cutting TIFIA and the Assistance for Major Projects by $50 million each) and requires 50% of the off-system bridge set-aside funding in the STP program to be used on bridges that are not on the federal-aid highway system.
Last Sunday, the Senate dispatched a couple of non-germane amendments, but voted to allow Senators to vote on whether or not to tie the Ex-Im Bank authorization to the highway authorization. Late last night, the Senate voted and approved that plan (64-39).
Under this new modified manager’s package, T4A believes that it is unlikely that few if any of the 200+ plus amendments filed by Senators will be considered or voted on. However, we do anticipate the introduction of a third manager’s amendment which will reflect additional changes. T4A continues to work to increase local control, innovation and access to jobs and opportunity through three primary amendments. They include the following:
Update: 5 Issues to Watch (for more information, please refer to T4A’s Member post on 7/23/15):
Pay-fors – Since the last post on 7/23/15, a number of items have shifted. A few provisions, considered poison pills, were removed, including the $2.3 billion that came from denying those with felony warrants social security benefits and $1.7 billion that came from rescinding unused funds for TARP’s Hardest Hit Fund. These rescissions leave the authorization with $43.7 billion, all of which are generated outside of the traditional transportation-user fee system. The measure would provide enough additional HTF revenues to provide the first three years of highway and transit investment, but Congress would be required to raise additional resources before October 2018 to be able to fund the final three years of the DRIVE Act’s authorized spending.
Transit funding – Changes in the manager’s package increased the levels of transit funding to be 24% of the authorized levels overall and 24% of any new funding generated annually.
Freight –The DRIVE Act creates a robust freight planning process that directs states to examine efficient goods movement and identify projects needed to improve multimodal freight movement. However, despite instituting a multi-modal freight planning process, the new National Highway Freight Program would require 90% of the funding go to highway-only projects rather than to multimodal projects using a performance-based system. What impact will this have?
Take, for example, the non-highway freight needs in the State of California. Ten percent of California’s funding would be only $9.3 million in 2016, growing to $23 million in 2021. Comparitively, one multimodal project at the Port of Long Beach in California to remove a railroad bottleneck and build more on-dock rail capacity cost the Port $84 million. T4A views this policy as a missed opportunity and not consistent with T4A’s freight policy.
Overall, due to removal of the TARP Hardest Hit Fund, the bill’s overall investment levels needed to be reduced. Under the first manager’s package, the freight program was set to receive $1.5 billion in FY2016 growing to $2 billion in FY2018. The program would now receive $991.5 million in FY2016 and increase to 1.9 billion in Fy2018.
Passenger Rail – No changes to note from the last update on 7/23/15.
Assistance for Major Projects (AMP) – Funding decreased by $50 million per year to increase funds for FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair Formula program. AMP would now be authorized at $250 million in FY16 and rise to $400 million in FY2021.
*NEW* TIFIA – The initial manager’s package introduced early last week would cut TIFIA funding from $1 billion to $500 million per year. Removing the TARP Hardest Hit Fund and other payfors required additional cuts, which senate authorizers took out of the TIFIA program. Those cuts, plus the increase to the FTA’s High Intensity/Fixed Guideway State of Good Repair program, result in an overall authorized funding level for TIFIA at just $300 million per year over the life of the bill.
***Please note, at 10:00am T4A received McConnell’s substitute amendment, which means that a number of these items may have changed. We’ll keep you updated as it proceeds.**
Last night, the US Senate passed a procedural vote called cloture. Like a starting pistol in a race, this means that they can now start debating, amending and eventually pass a federal surface transportation bill out of the Senate. While many things can, and will, happen over the next few days, there are a number of topics that Transportation for America is watching.
Want to know how your Senator voted on cloture? Click HERE.
1.Payfors – DC parlance for real and imaginary ways to pay for this bill.
At this time, there appears to be a wide-ranging list of payfors that run as small as $172 million up to $16 billion. Some of these include items like such as rescinding unused TARP funds or extending fees for TSA. There do not seem to be many that keep the traditional tie between users of the system and payments into the system.
The mass transit account appears to be running out of funding well before the highway trust fund. Initial T4A analysis seems to indicate that the legislation pulls in all 10 years of the proposed funding to pay for 3 years of the highway trust fund and 1.5 years of the mass transit account.
APTA transit funding table in current Senate transportation legislation
The legislation also appears to sell 101 million barrels out of the 693.7 million barrels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) between 2018 and 2025 to bring in $9B over 10 years. Critics of this funding scheme assert that we are selling the oil when prices are at record lows, making it a foolish idea. Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) is reportedly one of those critics.
Originally, this legislation withheld Social Security payments from recipients that are subjects of a felony arrest warrant and for whom the state has given notice that they intend to pursue the warrant, raising $2.3 billion over 10 years. T4A has heard that Senate negotiators have removed this provision due to the advocacy of a number of social equity and civil rights groups.
2. Transit
T4A and the larger transportation community have several concerns about this title, the main ones are:
US Banking Democrats chart on modal share under currently proposed Senate legislation
First, the DRIVE Act fails to provide public transportation with 20% of the new revenue dedicated to growth, which is a historical guarantee dating back to President Reagan’s agreement in 1982. Public transportation receives only 6% of the revenue derived from the future funding growth (see Senate Banking Democrats chart). U.S. DOT estimates that the Mass Transit Account ends the third year of the bill (FY 2018) with a negative balance of $180 million. Senator Boxer is reportedly negotiating a fix with Senate Republicans that will increase that percentage.
Second, projects with private funds get to “skip the line” for federal money, providing a major incentive for privatized service. The existence of a new expedited process could entice cities to pursue transit privatization on a large scale by using P3s to operate transit service. The labor community has expressed strong opposition and may oppose the entire bill if this provision isn’t removed.
Third, this legislation forces the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to wait 6 months before increasing oversight of at-risk projects. Sec. 21015 requires the FTA to wait for a project to fail 2 consecutive quarterly reviews before providing more oversight to a project that is going over budget or falling behind schedule.
3. The Freight program
This legislation includes all modes of freight, including pipelines for the first time. It also requires the establishment of a new multi-modal freight network within 1 year of enactment, the establishment of which appears to be similar to the creation of the existing freight network (as well as a re designation of the existing highway freight network). It does, however, define economic competitiveness by the amount of traffic moved and not economic outcomes and will fund projects that reduce congestion, improve reliability, boost productivity, improve safety or state of good repair, use advanced technology or protect the environment on the national highway freight network.
You’ll recall that T4A sent out an action alert to keep the TIGER programmultimodal and not let the US Senate Commerce Committee use it for freight-exclusive purposes. We’re happy to report that effort was successful, though the TIGER program is still not authorized or funded in the transportation bill.
4. Passenger Rail
This legislation authorizes passenger rail funding for the first time ever in a federal surface transportation reauthorization. The legislation calls for $1.44B in 2016 and growing to $1.9B in 2019. It maintains a national system and provides for clear cost accounting among the 4 business lines of Amtrak of the corridor, state-supported and long-distance trains. Provides for up to 6 new passenger rail routes on a competitive basis and for the first time makes operational costs eligible for grants.
5. AMP – Assistance for Major Projects
This is a new project for highway or transit projects that cost at least $350M or 25% percent of state highway apportionment (10% in a rural state). Applications should be reviewed based on consistency with federal goals, improvement to the performance of the system, is consistent with the statewide plan, can’t be completed without federal help and will achieve one or more of the following:
generate national economic benefits outweigh cost,
reduce congestion,
improve the reliability of movement of people and freight, or
improve safety
Grants under AMP must be at least $50M, with a rural guarantee of 20%. Eligible applicants for AMP include states, local governments (or group of locals), tribal governments, transit agencies, port authorities, public authorities with transportation function and federal land management agencies. It is not yet clear if this language is specific enough to include MPOs.
Amendments to be offered: T4A staff is monitoring a number of potential amendments. One of which (offered by Senators Wicker (R-MS) and Booker (D-NJ)) would increase the ability of communities to fund projects through the Surface Transportation Program. We strongly urge you to call your Senator and tell them to co-sponsor that amendment.
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.
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.”
Our country’s burgeoning passenger rail renaissance has not gone unnoticed in the deep South, and at least one coalition of southern leaders are working hard to grow and expand service in three states in the deep South. This week I had the privilege of traveling on the rails through the northeast with the Southern Rail Commission on a trip to inspire and see firsthand how other regions and cities have invested in passenger rail and used it as an economic catalyst for their communities.
John Spain, left, John Robert Smith, Dick Hall, Knox Ross, Joe McHugh, an Amtrak employee, Greg White, a second Amtrak employee and Bill Hollister pose outside an Amtrak train during the trip. John Spain, Knox Ross and Greg White are members of the Southern Rail Commission’s executive committee, Dick Hall is the Mississippi Central District Transportation Commissioner, and Joe McHugh and Bill Hollister are with Amtrak.
Transportation for America is proud to partner with the Southern Rail Commission on their work to help restore and expand passenger rail service through the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. SRC’s mission is to promote “the safe, reliable and efficient movement of people and goods to enhance economic development along rail corridors; provide transportation choices; and facilitate emergency evacuation routes.”
T4America chair and former Mayor of Meridian, MS, John Robert Smith
While expanded service in the booming northeast corridor or between other major coastal cities gets frequent publicity, many Southern states have moved past merely fighting to preserve what limited passenger rail service they have, to aggressively seeking opportunities to grow and expand service. Leaders in these states are seeking to connect more people to the tourism markets, health care systems and educational centers that drive their regional economies, and they see passenger rail as a critical option for doing so.
And the South wants to do it right the first time. They eagerly want to learn from the successes of other regions that have created, implemented, marketed and managed passenger rail that is responsive and right-sized for the populations they serve.
To that end, I led a delegation of the Southern Rail Commission (SRC) and Mississippi Central District Transportation Commissioner Dick Hall to experience and learn from two services in the Northeast. Although they’re structured differently, both lines we rode are highly successful and located far beyond the Mason-Dixon Line: the Downeaster and the Vermonter. The Downeaster runs from Boston through Portland and onto Brunswick, ME and the Vermonter runs from St. Albans, VT to New York City through Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Getting inspired along the route
Traveling north from Boston’s South Station, our departure point, the Downeaster carried us through urban centers and college towns, all with an inviting face turned toward the track. It was clear that each city and town recognized that the asset traveling through their backyards is an important part of who they were and who they aspired to be.
The similarities between these northeastern towns and our own southern hometowns were striking.
The train station in Durham, which sits in the middle of the campus of the University of New Hampshire, got me thinking: what would such a station placement mean to Tuscaloosa and the University of Alabama or Baton Rouge and Louisiana State University? Imagine getting on the train in Atlanta on a fall Friday with hundreds of other alumni to head to your old college town for a weekend of college football.
In Saco, ME, the warehouses and abandoned garment mills we saw transformed and reborn as upscale apartments and condominiums could be replicated in Hattiesburg or Meridian, Mississippi. Old Orange Beach, ME, was alive with beach and carnival goers on Memorial Day evening and the train filled with families from Boston and Montreal headed to join the fun. Don’t all of our southern cities have festivals and events worthy of sharing with our neighbors? And equally important, wouldn’t we all want to see our neighbors leaving their tax dollars in our cash registers?
Learning how to run a successful passenger rail service
Patricia Quinn
Time spent with Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA), while in Portland, was invaluable for SRC as they seek management models for expanded passenger rail service in the South. The strong state-supported Downeaster line managed by Patricia and her small but efficient staff demonstrates the value that attention to detail, on-time performance and a quality ride has for their customers — and potential new customers.
Wayne Davis, chairman of Train Riders Northeast and a NNEPRA board member, gave the tour of Freeport, ME beginning at their well-located Downeaster stop that welcomes visitors directly into the extensive retail shopping Freeport is noted for — anchored by the L.L. Bean main corporate store. Retail activity was brisk and many beautiful historic structures were enjoying new life as retail, restaurant and office space; all within an easy walk of the Downeaster rail connection.
Transit-oriented development, indeed!
Traveling through the White Mountains and Crawford’s Notch brought us to Montpelier, VT, and our meeting with Chris Cole, Deputy Secretary of Transportation, and his staff. The Vermonter and Ethan Allen lines are also state-supported routes, but unlike the Downeaster, they are operated not by an authority but by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans).
Deputy Secretary Cole explained their need for a dedicated Amtrak liaison staffer within VTrans — similar to the position that Maine and the Downeaster has — whose only mission is to manage their passenger rail contacts and focus on the on-time performance, maintenance and rider experience; a position that will be filled in the future.
Vermont has felt the positive economic impact of investing at the state level in both freight and passenger rail, buying closing shortline railroads, re-laying tracks and actively marketing the passenger rail service to its people. An especially smooth ride on the Vermonter back to New York City proved the value of VTrans’ investment.
Chris Parker, executive director of the Vermont Rail Action Network, riding with us as far as Brattleboro, Vermont, shared with us successful examples of advocacy built on partnerships and timely information shared with constituents. These goals are already a focus of the SRC and were validated by the visit with Chris, and lessons for improvement were also provided.
A special thank you to both Joe McHugh and Bill Hollister with Amtrak for coordinating and facilitating the trip to make this sharing of ideas, best practices and lessons learned, possible.
While the gracious hospitality we received rivaled that we’re accustomed to receiving in the South, it was the Yankee efficiency and ingenuity we witnessed that most impressed. Like all good southerners, SRC has the hospitality down, but taking a solid dose of that Yankee efficiency and ingenuity back home would serve the SRC well.
We’re excited to help our friends at SRC use these lessons learned to build something that will help their regions prosper. As they say at SRC: “Ya’ll Aboard.”
Secretary Ray LaHood is in a good mood this morning. The U.S. Department of Transportation has announced the recipients of $2 billion in high-speed rail funds, a total of 22 “carefully selected projects that will create jobs, boost manufacturing and spur development while laying the foundation for future economic competitiveness,” LaHood wrote on his blog.
The lion’s share of the money —$795 million — will be used to upgrade the most heavily-used sections of the bustling Northeast Corridor, increasing speeds from 135 to 160 miles per hour on critical segments, as well as improve on-time performance and add seats, according to USDOT. Amtrak already carries a majority of the traffic between DC and New York and better service will help meet burgeoning demand in that corridor.
“I am thrilled,” the Secretary added. So, too, are the diverse array of recipients. Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, who netted $30 million, called the decision “great news and a win for the state.” California Congressman Dennis Cardoza, whose Central Valley district has weathered double-digit unemployment and some of the nation’s highest foreclosure rates, said the $300 million his state received was a “step forward in connecting our Valley with the opportunities of the future.”
In Michigan, Transportation for America organizer CeCe Grant told the Detroit Free Press that the $200 million in funds to rebuild rail lines between Dearborn and Kalamazoo would result in nearly 70 percent of Michigan residents and 71 percent of the state’s employees within 15-miles of a high-speed rail station.
Other winners, as described by USDOT, included:
$25 million to Rhode Island to design and construct an additional 1.5 miles of third track in Kingston, enabling trains operating at speeds up to 150 mph to pass other trains on a high-volume section of the corridor.
$58 million to New York to upgrade tracks, stations and signals along the Empire Corridor, including replacing the Schenectady Station and constructing a fourth station track at the Albany-Rensselaer Station.
$40 million to Pennsylvania to rebuild an interlocking near Harrisburg on the Keystone Corridor.
$186.3 million to Illinois to construct track along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor between Dwight and Joliet to accommodate 110 mph trains.
$13.5 million to Missouri to advance design work to replace the Merchant’s Bridge over the Mississippi River along the Chicago-St. Louis corridor.
$5 million to Minnesota to complete engineering and environmental work to establish the Northern Lights Express, which would connect Minneapolis and Duluth with 110 mph trains.
$15 million to Texas to conduct engineering and environmental work to develop a high-speed rail corridor linking Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston.
$4 million to North Carolina to conduct an environmental analysis of the Richmond-Raleigh section of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corirdor.
$1.5 million to Oregon to analyze overnight parking tracks for passenger trains on the southern end of the Pacific Northwest corridor, which will add capacity and enable increased passenger- and freight-rail service.
The funds were made available when Florida Governor Rick Scott rejected federal support earlier this year.
“If I sound excited about the prospect of American high-speed rail, it’s because I am,” Secretary LaHood concluded on his blog. “High-speed intercity passenger rail offers real, practical benefits — benefits we cannot afford to ignore.
The New York Timesresolutely defended high-speed rail in an editorial this morning, characterizing the elimination of remaining funds for the program this fiscal year as “harebrained.”
The budget deal reached by the White House and Congress zeroed-out the $1 billion allocated for high-speed rail in fiscal year 2011 and rescinded an additional $400 million that had been returned by Florida Governor Rick Scott. A previous agreement to keep the government running for an additional week had already included $1.5 billion in cuts.
Governor Scott weathered heavy criticism for rejecting the funds, including from fellow Republicans, and his administration has since acknowledged getting key facts about the project wrong in a presentation to the state Supreme Court.
The Times strongly opposed Scott’s decision, but noted that his action has enabled other interested governors, including 11 Republicans, to put in bids. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has 90 proposals from 24 states to choose from, with a total price tag of $10 billion, and a total of $2.4 billion to distribute. The Times wrote:
Two areas stand out on that list: the Northeast corridor from Boston to Washington; and California, which has ambitions to build a high-speed rail system from San Francisco and Sacramento to San Diego. California voters have approved almost $10 billion in bonds for the project (which has an ultimate price tag of some $45 billion), but the state wants the $2 billion for an extension.
While supportive of California’s efforts, the Times would like to see Amtrak’s application for an upgrade to the Northeast corridor’s Acela line receive top priority. Their $1.3 billion request would boost Acela’s speed from 135 miles per hour to 160 miles per hour between Philadelphia and New York City, one of the busiest and most popular stretches in the country. And, New York submitted an application to clear a path for Acela through New York City’s Penn Station, which more than 750 trains pass through daily.
USDOT has not yet announced when recipients will be selected.
Although a Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Obama administration set and followed a merit based decision-making process for awarding high-speed rail and TIGER grants, several Republican lawmakers claimed the report revealed a lack of transparency and accountability for where the money went.
“Although we can develop cost-effective high-speed rail transportation in this country, I cannot imagine a worse beginning to a U.S. high-speed rail effort,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, the Florida Republican pictured at right, said in a statement earlier this week.
But as Tanya Snyder at Streetsblog Capitol Hill reported, the discrepancies cited by Republicans are largely the result of the two-step awarding process at the U.S. Department of Transportation. The GAO noted that the review team considered a broader range of criteria, including geographic diversity, than the evaluation team, and thus differing results were not unexpected. Snyder wrote:
GAO doesn’t dispute the validity of those decisions but would have liked to see more thorough documentation of why they chose some of the previously lower-ranked projects over higher ones. Draft minutes of meetings shed some light on the decisions but were never published.
Further, the GAO noted that TIGER was a newly-formed program under the Recovery Act and that USDOT “developed a sound set of criteria to evaluate the merits of applications and select grants that would meet the goals of the program.” The GAO went on the write:
By thoroughly documenting how its technical teams considered and applied the criteria, clearly communicating selection criteria to applicants, and publicly disclosing some information on the attributes of the projects that were selected, DOT took important steps to build the framework for future competitive programs and its institutional capacity to administer them.
The GAO also concluded that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which awarded high-speed rail grants “established a fair and objective approach,” but noted that the “exception is what we view as incomplete documentation of why some applications were chosen and not others, and how FRA decided to distribute the funds at the time those decisions were made.” The FRA later clarified and provided details for most of the GAO’s questions.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood strongly defended the decision-making process, saying the GAO report confirms that “we did everything above-board,” and Streetsblog concluded with:
The GAO reports pointed out room for improvement but were overwhelmingly positive about both the TIGER and high-speed rail programs.
A link to both reports can be found on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee website.
Two lead actors from Mad Men, the 1960s era advertising agency show, appear in a Funnyordie.com video endorsing high-speed rail posted earlier today.
Attacks on high-speed rail in both Congress and state capitals prompted U.S. PIRG to tap actors Vincent Kartheiser and Rich Sommer for the segment, which was can be viewed at this link or above.
In the video, Mad Men character Pete worries that his agency might have picked the wrong horse by advertising for cars, while Harry assures him that “America always makes the right investments. Trains are the most efficient, most economic, best investment.
“But, honestly, I think you can relax on the whole thing,” Harry continues. “I read that in 40 years, gas is going to be almost a dollar a gallon.”
Supporting President Obama’s high-speed rail push “saves oil and gives people a more efficient alternative to the hassles of flying and driving,” says U.S. PIRG’s Phineas Baxandall. “Even 40 years ago it would have been a no-brainer.”
If you support high-speed rail and want to fight back against its critics, watch the video and rate it “funny” to keep the message out there.
