state funding & policy Archives - Page 2 of 2

Wrapping up Capital Ideas: Making the case for smarter state transportation policy

After two days of hands-on expert advice — and hopefully some inspiration and encouragement — state and local leaders from all over the country are returning home from our second Capital Ideas conference better equipped to advance creative and innovative transportation funding and policy reforms to make the most of limited infrastructure dollars.

Smart Growth America president and CEO Geoff Anderson kicking off Capital Ideas in Sacramento, CA on November 16, 2016

For two days in Sacramento, more than 50 speakers interacted with 200-plus smart, passionate leaders helping their states take a different path when faced with dwindling transportation revenues or outdated, 1950’s policies that are ill-equipped to solving the complicated, multimodal challenges that local communities face today.

We heard from state DOT officials doing impressive things to save money and spend it more effectively. We heard from state legislators who’ve rolled up their sleeves and raised new revenues for transportation. We heard from experts at nearly all levels of government who are thinking about the future of technology and the ramifications for the communities we call home.

And we heard from a red-state republican state legislator who detailed his journey from transit skeptic to believer in a keynote on the second day of Capital Ideas.

When Utah House Speaker Greg Hughes was tapped to serve on the Utah Transit Authority’s board in Salt Lake City, he confessed that he didn’t even believe at the time that transit was a prudent investment. But part of the powerful story of how he came to see the necessity of investing in transit was his discovery that certain highways being widened (at high cost) would be at capacity and completely congested within only six years.

And as he became something of an evangelist for investing in transit to provide more options and a balanced, multimodal system for the booming region, he would point out the heavy cost of putting all the eggs in one basket. “How much land would we have to condemn to do something like this? How much would this cost?” he would ask other local leaders in tandem with this photo from his presentation:

Greg Hughes Capital Ideas congestion photo

But perhaps the most exciting part of Capital Ideas was the 25-plus separate breakout sessions that stretched across both afternoons.

After half a day firmly rooted in folding chairs mostly being talked to, the breakouts allowed participants to interact and go hands-on with notable experts. Experts like Dave Williams with the Metro Atlanta Chamber, who shared Georgia’s experience with passing state legislation to enable local transit referenda. (A measure that Atlanta voters approved last week to raise $2.5 billion in new tax money to invest in MARTA and transit in the region.)

Dave Williams capital ideas breakout group 2

Dave Williams with the Metro Atlanta Chamber, top center, walks his table through Georgia’s experience passing state legislation that altered the state’s gas tax and also enabled Atlanta to go to the ballot for transportation funding.

During the breakouts, Maryland Delegate Brooke Lierman, right, shared her experience advancing state legislation to begin evaluating and scoring transportation projects on their merits.

We covered an incredible range of topics, but a few clear themes and a hopeful undercurrent ran throughout the two days.

T4America Director James Corless noted that nearly every story of transit ballot box success was preceded by a failure. Salt Lake City. Denver. Seattle. Atlanta. And the list goes on.

“It’s OK to fail,” he exhorted everyone. “It’s ok, as long as you learn and get back up. And you have to get back up.” And most importantly, “There is no need to do it alone. And in fact, you can’t do it alone!”

Indianapolis shows a good road map for doing it together.

“Indy’s strong local coalition [for their successful transit ballot measure] included the Indy Chamber and numerous faith-based groups and churches,” he noted. “That’s a good roadmap for coming together to make the investments we need to build prosperous local economies and ensure that everyone can connect to opportunity.”

With a lot of looming question marks about federal transportation funding and policy right now, the importance of getting state (and local) transportation policy right is coming into sharp focus.

As the conference closed wrapped up Thursday afternoon, T4America chairman and former Mayor John Robert Smith offered a reminder that solutions need to come from the bottom up, and that we will succeed or fail based on the breadth of the coalitions we build.

John Robert Smith Capital Ideas “We’ve heard about the importance of knowing who is in the foxhole with you and appreciating the strength of those in the foxhole with you, but I want us to expand and broaden the coalition we have here. We’re going to need to be bipartisan and inclusive,” Mayor Smith urged participants. “I want you to help us find those people, find those stories, lift up those stories and support that voice and perhaps we can have an impact on minds that might otherwise be closed.”

And for those discouraged by what’s happening at the federal level (or any level, truthfully) when it comes to decisions made about investing in transportation, Mayor Smith reminded everyone — especially the scores of elected leaders in the room — to hold fast to the long view of progress.

“When I speak to local elected officials, I always tell them: If your commitment and vision is limited by a four- or eight-year term, you’re failing the people you represent,” he said.

“Your commitment and vision has to be decades ahead. It has to be beyond your service, and perhaps even beyond your lifespan. The work that we do, the plans we make, the vision we have, will neither be completed and realized nor will it be destroyed in a four- or eight-year term. Our vision, our plans, our commitment are bigger than that. They’re bolder than that. They’re more resilient than that. I want to encourage you: stay that course, be that voice.”

We’re incredibly grateful for the 200-plus people who traveled to Sacramento for Capital Ideas and helped made it a rousing success. Thank you so much for joining us. Many of the participants who came to learn were also some of the policy experts at the roundtables. Panelists stuck around and dove into other issues they were interested in. Capital Ideas was knowledge- and experience-sharing of the highest order.

Our heartfelt thanks goes to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments for co-hosting the conference and pitching in at every turn and in every way. And we thank our sponsors: TransitCenter, Uber, CalTrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Rails-To-Trails Conservancy.

See you in 2018??

[VIDEO] How did Utah build miles of transit and raise state transportation funding?

How did Utah leaders and citizens stare down a recession while raising new state revenues for transportation and making a range of investments to bolster the economy and quality of life? On day two of our Capital Ideas conference on November 16-17, Utah House Speaker Greg Hughes will be on hand to answer that question and others.

Click the video above to hear a few nuggets from Capital Ideas keynote speaker Speaker Hughes about his state’s approach to building consensus for new transportation investments.

Back in 2015, the Utah legislature voted to raise the state’s gas tax and tie it to inflation, and provide individual counties with the ability to go to the ballot with sales tax increases to fund critical local transportation priorities — which ten Utah counties approved a year ago.

Republican House Speaker Greg Hughes has been on the front lines of these efforts to raise new state funding, empower local communities and build a huge regional transit system nearly from scratch in Salt Lake City. In addition to Speaker Hughes, hear from an expansive roster of other speakers at this year’s Capital Ideas conference.

Don’t miss out on these conversations. Join us in Sacramento on November 16-17 for Capital Ideas. Register now and reserve your spot!

Are you already attending?

Help us spread the word via Facebook, Twitter, and email. Click to share.

Thanks to our conference sponsors

SACOG logo

Capital Ideas is co-hosted by SACOG

We also recognize the generous support of our many philanthropic partners who have helped make this conference possible.

Members get a deal!

Dues-paying T4America members get $100 off registration. Inquire with us about getting a promo code. Find out more about T4America membership here.

Come a day early for the first national Complete Streets conference

A reminder that Street Lights: Illuminating Implementation and Equity in Complete Streets will be taking place on the day before Capital Ideas begins. Get two great conferences out of one trip to California — register today to secure your place in the room.

State legislative stalemate jeopardizing millions in federal transit funding for Minneapolis rail project

Business leaders and suburban mayors in the Twin Cities are pleading with state legislators, urging them not to throw away dedicated federal funding for a long-planned regional transit expansion by dropping the state’s financial commitment. Updated 9/1 with new information at the bottom of the post.

Opening day on the Green Line. Flickr photo by Michael Hicks. /photos/mulad/14238058898/

One of the major bills Minnesota legislators have been aiming to hammer out in a special session this fall is a capital bonding and transportation package to raise new state funding for transportation. But so far, Gov. Mark Dayton, the DFL-controlled Senate and the House Republican majority have failed to agree on a much larger package of tax cuts, transportation and infrastructure improvements — a package intended to include promised state funding to extend the existing Green Line light rail southwest into Minneapolis’ suburbs toward Eden Prairie.

Though $900 million in federal New Starts transit funds and $750 million in local tax funding have been pledged and $140 million has already been spent, this political stalemate over the state’s $135 million share is threatening to kill the project and send nearly a billion dollars in federal funds back to Washington (and then off to another project elsewhere in the country.)

Republican legislators in the House majority largely oppose spending state funding on the project whatsoever, even opposing a recent compromise to allow additional local funding to cover the state’s gap. This last-gasp effort at saving $900-plus million in federal funding would cover the state’s inaction by tapping a greater share of local funding on top of the $750 million already committed in local taxes.

As the Star Tribune reported last week:

Under the new proposal, which Dayton said his administration and Met Council staff devised just a day earlier, three entities would raise the $145 million state match: the Met Council would contribute $92 million, Hennepin County would contribute $21 million and the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) would kick in $32 million.

This compromise would allow the project to proceed without state legislative action, though there would still be hurdles to clear: each of these three bodies noted above would have to vote separately to approve their share of the $145 million, and do it quickly. Barring legislative action or successful votes on the compromise plan to increase local funding, the project will run out of funds by the end of September, forcing staff layoffs and the reassignment of private engineering firm employees.

A prominent group of 12 area CEOs that employ more than 100,000 area residents penned a letter to the Star Tribune back in the spring about state funding for transit and the planned regional projects, including the southwest light rail extension.

Wise investments in transit are worth making. Passing a comprehensive transportation bill that includes transit is critical in this session. If the state doesn’t act to provide funding for these projects, these federal dollars will go to a transit project in another state. Failure to act this year also means some of these projects will be in jeopardy. The business community can’t afford to miss out on this investment. Neither can the health of our communities, our region or the state of Minnesota. We hope state lawmakers will take action to ensure the best future for our region.

Minnetonka is one of the southwestern suburban cities the completed light rail line would pass through. Mayor Terry Schneider told the Star Tribune last week in that article above, “We’ve worked on this for five years, and we’ve come to the strong conclusion that it’s the best way for our city, the state and the region to meet the needs of the future. To waste the opportunity now, to squander it for internal bickering, would be a huge disservice to citizens of our state and region.”

9/1 UPDATE: The local jurisdictions reached a deal to cover the state’s unpaid $135 million share for the project to keep it moving ahead — including paying nearly $10 million in delay costs incurred by the state’s inaction during the legislative session. From The Met Council today:

The Southwest LRT Project is officially moving forward, after securing the remaining local funding commitments this week. …These contributions will together fill a $144.5 million funding gap, made up by the remaining necessary state match of $135 million plus $9.5 million in local delay costs caused by the legislature’s inaction in May.

Finding solutions to debates over state funding for transit are the kind of topics we’ll be exploring in depth at Capital Ideas, our conference on state transportation funding and policy.

Check out the agenda, register today and join us in Sacramento this November 16-17.

Crucial transportation and transit-related ballot measures coming up in 2016

Throughout 2016, ballot measures and referenda that will raise new revenue for transportation at the local or state level will be decided during elections across the country. As in years past, we’ll be keeping a close eye on several of the most notable questions in the 2016 edition of Transportation Vote.

We’ll be profiling a few at length on the blog over the next few months and keeping all the relevant information organized in a table: https://t4america.org/maps-tools/state-policy-funding/2016-votes

Two years ago in 2014, a handful of states moved to create “lockboxes” for transportation funds and several others raised new funding. At the local level, cities and counties from Atlanta to Seattle approved important ballot measures to raise new funding to either preserve or massively expand public transportation service. The voters in a growing list of states and localities will be deciding similar questions this November, and we’ll be keeping a close eye. Stay tuned for more, and bookmark Transportation Vote 2016.

Transportation-related ballot measures tend to do well with voters — whether statewide or exclusively local measures — passing at around twice the rate of all other ballot measures. And transit or multimodal measures always do well, passing about 71 percent of the time since 2009.

As soon as election day is over, the focus will shift to 2017 and especially the state legislative sessions beginning around the beginning of the year. If you want to know more about state legislation related to transportation revenue, you need to join us in Sacramento for Capital Ideas II. There’s still time to register and make travel plans to meet us there. Don’t miss your opportunity to be a part of this terrific event that will help equip you to make things happen in 2017 and beyond.

Note: We don’t track 100 percent of all transit-related measures — for an overview of all transit-related ballot measures, turn to the Center for Transportation Excellence, the authority on tracking such data. Questions about measures or know of a significant one we should be following that doesn’t appear here? Reach out to Dan Levine on our staff.

Illinois legislature passes new policy that will aid the financing of transit projects

A just-passed bill in Illinois will make it easier to finance the construction and expansion of transit service across the state, making it easier for several crucial transit projects to go forward in the Chicago region.

This post was written by Peter Skosey, the Executive Vice President of the Metropolitan Planning Council in Chicago, Illinois, and reprinted here with his permission. MPC is a T4America member. Curious about membership with T4America? Find out more here.

Transit in Chicago just got a whole lot better, thanks to the General Assembly in Springfield — not the actor normally credited with such matters.

On July 1, 2016, the House and Senate approved the Transit Facility Improvement Area (TFIA), an innovative approach to finance specific transit projects in the City of Chicago. MPC has long supported this solution that many other cities across the country use, including Denver, San Francisco, Atlanta, New York and Milwaukee.

For decades, the entire country has neglected maintenance of existing trains, roads and bridges in favor of building new infrastructure. However, the latest federal transportation bill created a new “core capacity” provision, championed by Illinois’ own Sen. Dick Durbin, which allows critically needed maintenance projects [that will improve capacity], such as rebuilding the Chicago Transit Authority’s Red and Purple lines from Belmont north to the end of line in Evanston, to receive significant funding from Washington. These federal transit grants have one “catch:” locals must match those dollars, in this case about one-for-one.

chicago amtrak expansion By authorizing TFIA, the Illinois General Assembly created a way for Chicago to provide the necessary match for Red/Purple Line modernization and critical improvements to Union Station — for which Amtrak is currently doing phase 1 engineering and seeking a master developer.

Here’s how TFIA works: The added value that enhanced transit service brings to the surrounding property is captured in the form of property taxes and used to finance the improvements to the transit facility [that catalyzed the increases in the first place].

In the case of Union Station, Amtrak is seeking a developer to build on three parcels it controls. (Indicated in blue in the image above.) The additional property tax generated from those three new developments would be captured for up to 35 years to finance critical improvements to Union Station allowing for wider platforms, a roomier concourse and more trains in and out of the station. This is imperative, as Union Station is at capacity now and future growth of Chicago’s downtown depends on people being able to access their jobs via transit.

Many deserve kudos and thanks for supporting the TFIA measure: the original Senate and House sponsors of SB277, Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and Ron Sandack (R-Downers Grove); House leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) and Sen. Toi Hutchinson (D-Chicago Heights), who sponsored the ultimate bill, SB2562; members of the House who voted 78 to 27 in favor; and the Senate, which unanimously approved the measure.

Passage of TFIA was a great step forward in the battle to maintain our region’s transportation infrastructure and remain competitive in the global economy. Next up: Illinois must identify $43 billion in new revenues over the next 10 years to take care of the rest of the system.

These kinds of important changes to state policy are exactly what we’ll be discussing at Capital Ideas II this November 16-17 in Sacramento. Join us there and learn lessons to take back to your state. Register today!

New Jersey shuts down almost all transportation projects amidst fight over nearly bankrupt transportation fund

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie shut down almost all ongoing state transportation projects this week after a legislative stalemate over rescuing the state’s bankrupt Transportation Trust Fund — a debate that hinged on pairing a gas tax increase with cuts to the state’s sales tax.

Flickr photo by Bob Jagendorf. /photos/bobjagendorf/5492860578

Flickr photo by Bob Jagendorf. http://flickr.com/photos/bobjagendorf/5492860578

This week New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) ordered a halt to all of the state’s transportation projects, other than those that are “absolutely essential”, to conserve the dwindling cash in the state’s Transportation Trust Fund.

With an incredibly low gas tax that hasn’t increased since 1988, the state has relied on bonding, rather than new revenue, to pay for road and transit projects. As a result, an astonishing 100 percent of all fuel tax revenues are now devoted to paying down debt on past projects.

Since hitting a borrowing limit on June 30^th, the fund is quickly running out of cash for new projects. The Governor, state Assembly, and bipartisan groups of senators have all backed various plans that would include a big hike in the state’s gas tax — the second-lowest state fuel tax in the country at 14.5 cents-per-gallon — to boost transportation funding.

But negotiations stalled over what tax cuts or new policies would accompany the increase in the gas tax.

While this funding crisis has been looming for years, state leaders — especially Gov. Christie — have long opposed any increases to the fuel tax as a solution. But last week, when facing a funding cliff, legislators seemed to agree on a plan to pair a 23-cent-per-gallon increase in the state fuel tax with cuts to the estate tax and an increase in the earned-income tax credit. This package had bipartisan sponsors in the state Senate when it was introduced last Monday.

But that same day, Gov. Christie came out of negotiations with Assembly leaders with a new plan: keep the 23-cent gas tax increase, but pair it with a one-percentage-point cut to the state sales tax. That plan (A12) cleared the Assembly on a 53-23 vote and was publicly backed by the governor.

The Senate balked at this alternative and the $1.7 billion hole it would blow in the state’s general fund. Cutting the state’s sales tax would jeopardize many state programs that depend on general funds, including slashing the main source of operating funds for the state’s transit agency while increasing the primary source of funds for roads.

Already, the state has cut operating funds for NJ Transit from $278 million in 2005 to just $33 million in 2016. Some extra money for transit has come from shifting long-term capital funds (including money originally set aside for Access to the Region’s Core trans-Hudson tunnel project that Gov. Christie canceled in 2010) to day-to-day operations. But the rest of the funding gap has come at transit riders’ expense, from fare hikes and service cuts, all while road users have enjoyed the same low gas tax rate since the year President Ronald Reagan left office. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign illustrated this in a picture:

The slice on the right should have a topping by now. Instead, NJ has shut down #transpo projects. #ThrowbackThursday pic.twitter.com/67Kcwus2oI

— Tri-State (@Tri_State) July 7, 2016

Gov. Christie is blaming the transportation shut down on the Senate. But transportation advocates in the state accuse the governor of holding transportation projects hostage in a bid to win bigger tax cuts.

The shutdown will have real consequences for the state. Christie’s order has halted more than 1,100 active state, county, and local highway and transit projects. Stopping and eventually restarting construction projects can add considerably to their costs. People driving and people riding transit will wait longer — at least as long as the standoff lasts — for relief and improved service the projects would offer.

The short-term crises are a disaster at the time the state needs long-term funding to complete critical, major projects, like the Gateway Tunnel into New York City, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail extension, and the Glassboro-Camden line.

We’re closely watching New Jersey to see how the state resolves this funding crisis. Many state legislators have expressed an unwillingness to increase the gas tax in the past because they believe their citizens don’t have faith that the existing money is well spent. How can these legislators implement smarter policies to boost the confidence of those citizens in order to raise new money for transportation?

Join us for Capital Ideas II in Sacramento November 16-17 for in-depth conversations on state transportation policy and politics. Register today!

Virginia approves its first transportation plan based on a new system of scoring and prioritizing projects

Today Virginia’s Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the first set of transportation projects selected and prioritized through the state’s new scoring process to objectively screen and score them based on their anticipated benefits. The newly renamed SMART Scale directs $1.7 billion to 163 projects across the state.

VA Commonwealth Transportation Bd OKs 6-yr spending plan that for 1st time uses scoring system to rationalize project selection.

— Dr. Gridlock (@drgridlock) June 14, 2016

Following the release of the first list of recommended projects back in January, today’s approval from the CTB marks the first complete cycle of a brand new process created by the legislature a few years ago to improve the process for selecting projects and awarding transportation dollars — all in an effort to direct the new money to the best, most cost-effective projects with the greatest bang for the buck.

“Political wish lists of the past are replaced with a data-driven process that is objective and transparent, making the best use of renewed state funding,” as Gov. Terry McAuliffe said earlier this year.

This new scoring system became law under HB2, passed unanimously in 2014. Following after earlier legislation that raised new money to invest in transportation, the law established five fundamental goals for the state’s transportation investments: reduce congestion, support economic development, expand accessibility, improve safety, and protect environmental quality. We covered these changes in detail in one of our Capital Ideas reports in 2015.

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) developed a data-driven system to evaluate projects across the commonwealth and advance those that will deliver the greatest return from each dollar of state funds, adding valuable transparency to the once-murky process of directing state money. The score for every project considered was listed publicly on VDOT’s www.virginiahb2.org web page during the last four months of public comment.

In a press release announcing the approved program today, Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne says, “In the past, Virginia had a politically driven and opaque transportation funding process that was filled with uncertainty for local communities and businesses. The SMART SCALE process makes the best use of renewed state funding approved in 2013 and the recently approved federal transportation bill.”

Virginia’s new scoring process offers a model for other states. As legislators see transportation dollars dwindling, it is more important than ever to ensure funds go to the best projects.

Since Virginia’s General Assembly passed HB2 in 2014, Louisiana, Texas, and Massachusetts have all advanced their own new processes to objectively score or prioritize projects. This year Maryland’s assembly overrode Gov. Larry Hogan’s (R) veto to enact a new, objective scoring process. Though the policy is similar to HB2, Maryland will face a challenge to replicate Virginia’s success in a climate with a far less collaborative political process — which was as crucial to Virginia’s success as the underlying policy.

How can other states replicate this?

Virginia’s shift to a more transparent system of selecting transportation projects is just one of the many smart policy changes that we’ll be covering in detail in Sacramento this November at Capital Ideas II, our one-of-a kind conference on state transportation policy. Come and be inspired and educated!

Learn More & Register

California officially dumped the outdated “level of service” metric — your state should too

California made a small but crucial change to how they measure the performance of their streets in 2013, shifting away from a narrow focus on moving as many cars as fast as possible and taking a more holistic view and measuring a street’s performance against a broader list of other important goals. So what is this outdated “level of service” measure and how can other states follow California’s lead?

Wanting to rejuvenate their local economy, a community cooks up plans to redesign the local street running through downtown that was perhaps even short-sightedly widened or converted to one way travel in the 1960’s or 70’s. But as the street is also a state highway, they soon hear from the state department of transportation (DOT) that their proposed changes will slow down traffic and fail to meet “level of service” requirements and won’t make the cut of the state’s short list of projects. Worse yet, the community is told that in order to make a street safer, they actually need to widen it and smooth out any curves, making it a virtual speedway, undercutting their plans to build a place with more enjoyable places to walk and visit — a framework for creating economic prosperity. Heard this story before?

What is level of service, and how do DOTs come to this conclusion?

Though there are no formal or federal requirements to do so, most DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations and traffic engineers rely on a metric known as level of service (LOS). According to Jason Henderson, professor of geography at San Francisco State University, “Every city I’ve ever come across has some use of [LOS].” Because of the ubiquity of LOS, this largely misunderstood measurement has profound influence on the design of our communities.

Level of service is a system by which road engineers measure how well a road is performing based on the number of cars and the delay that vehicles experience on that roadway. Letters designate each level, from A to F. A, B and C represent free-flowing conditions and F is stop-and-go traffic. The score is assessed based on the highest level of congestion on that roadway, even if it only occurs a few minutes a day. Traditionally, roadway conditions are acceptable if they score a C or higher on non-urban streets and a D or higher on urban streets.

The LOS measurement is calculated by first measuring the amount of traffic during the busiest 15 minutes of an evening rush hour. Next, traffic engineers project the amount of traffic on the road in 20 or 30 years to determine if the road has enough capacity to cover the lifespan of the asset. If a road is projected by traffic engineers to lack capacity 20 years in the future — an incredibly fuzzy practice that’s far more art (or magic?) than math — that road still receives a failing LOS grade today, even if the road is adequately suiting capacity needs.

This heavy reliance on LOS has dramatically shaped our cities. As Gary Toth from the Project for Public Spaces brilliantly put it in this piece, transportation professionals, “in search of high LOS rankings, have widened streets, added lanes, removed on-street parking, limited crosswalks, and deployed other inappropriate strategies” all because LOS has been the de facto standard over the last 50 years. This terrific cartoon from Andy Singer that Toth includes shows the rationale in practice:

andy singer cartoon rototil congestion city level of service street road design

Where did this measure come from?

The 1965 federal Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual introduced the LOS metric and it quickly became accepted as the standard measure of roadway performance. One reason that states adopted the LOS so quickly was that it suited our country’s transportation goals in the 1960’s of building out a network of interstates and prioritizing automobiles to travel quickly.

Although LOS quickly became the standard, transportation agencies at any level are not explicitly required to use it: there are no planning or project design requirements that mandate the use of either LOS or travel modeling. FHWA recently issued a memo clarifying that level-of-service was never a federal requirement. Read more about that (and some other important changes) in this recent story:

Feds get out of the way of communities that want to design safer, more complete streets

If we are going to change the way our streets and communities are designed, we will need to change the way we measure their performance. And that’s exactly what California has set out to do. In 2013, California legislature passed a law that began the shift, directing the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to use an alternative of measuring vehicle-miles traveled (VMT).

In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 743, eliminating the use of LOS for projects within designated transit priority areas (TPAs). As Streetsblog LA reported in 2013, because most urban areas fall within the state-defined parameters of a TPA, this means that LOS is largely eliminated for urban projects. Additionally, SB 743 authorized Governor Brown to develop a new way of measuring traffic impacts of major projects statewide and based the new way on total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rather than intersection congestion. This will change how development projects are analyzed and scored in traffic impact studies and thus the type of projects that match up with the state’s goals for development.

In short, instead of measuring the success of a project by only the limited measure of whether or not it will make it less convenient to drive, CalTrans will now measure whether or not a project contributes to other state goals, like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, developing affordable multimodal transportation options for residents, preserving open spaces, and promoting diverse land uses and infill development. It is expected that this change will make it easier to build transit projects, as well as bicycle and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure — instead of encouraging more development that works against California’s own environmental and other goals.

How can other states replicate this move?

Great question.

This change in California is just one of the many smart policy changes that we’ll be covering in detail in Sacramento this November at Capital Ideas II, our one-of-a kind conference on state transportation policy. We’ll have experts on hand from California who will be discussing their legislative and policy shift away from level of service. Expect to hear more about that as we finalize the agenda in the coming weeks and share it here with you.

Learn More & Register

Capital Ideas II

What progress did states make this year on raising new funding or improving policy?

Nearly all state legislatures have adjourned for the year. Here’s our regular look at the progress made in states working to create more transparency, build more public trust in transportation spending, or raise new money.

Though most states have wrapped up their legislative sessions, transportation funding fights still loom large on the agendas for many of the states still in session. And one key issue to watch is the scores of local governments putting forward ballot measures for this November’s election to approve new local funding.

Our state policy bill tracker is the best way to keep tabs on the most current information about these states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy — all tracked in three separate searchable, sortable tables of that information.

In addition, our hub for state policy and funding related resources includes all past and current reports, bill trackers, and other state-focused resources.

STATE FUNDING

New Jersey faces perhaps the worst transportation funding crisis in the country with a trust fund that is bankrupt. Transportation funds will be shut off completely on July 1st unless state leaders find new funding.

Legislative leaders are reportedly developing a “tax fairness plan” that would raise new revenue for transportation and cut other state taxes. Negotiating a package that will pass the assembly and senate with bipartisan, veto-proof supermajorities would sidestep Gov. Chris Christie (R), who has not supported any new revenues for transportation. In fact, the governor and transportation commissioner have downplayed the crisis and put the obligation on the legislature to find new revenue.

A tax agreement would likely include income tax deductions and a reduction of the estate tax, resulting in cuts to the general state budget, while a fuel tax or other new revenue would add to the state’s Transportation Trust Fund. Another possible funding source under consideration is adding new tolls on highways that are now free.

The state has the second lowest gas tax in the country and $30 billion in outstanding debt from past transportation projects. As a result, 100% of the dollars collected through the gas tax go to cover debt on past projects. The Transportation Trust Fund will run dry when it reaches a borrowing limit on June 30th.

Democrats are pushing for $2 billion in annual transportation spending; Republicans are looking for $1.6 billion annually, the average amount of state funding each of the last five years. The state’s transportation needs — especially the need for expanded transit service — are growing. The population around rail transit stations in the state is booming.

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) proposed a per-mile driving charge (SB 3267) as an alternative to the state’s per-gallon fuel tax. Though after receiving feedback he says he will not move forward with the proposal.

There’s been little visible progress toward any sort of agreement on transportation funding in Minnesota, and other policy and budget issues stand in the way of a bipartisan agreement. A bill (SF3211) introduced in the senate by Sen. Vicki Jensen (DFL-Owatonna) would direct the state DOT to develop a new, objective process to score and select projects. Moving in this direction could help steer the limited funds to the best projects while also building up public support for additional transportation funding.

The Colorado House passed a bill (HB1420) 39-26 to make budget changes that would allow additional state funds to flow to transportation. The bill faces an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled Senate.

The Oregon Legislature has named a new, special, bicameral, bipartisan study committee to develop a transportation funding package. The committee will begin regularly holding public meetings in May. This is a big improvement in transparency from the closed-door negotiation that resulted in a dead-end transportation funding proposal last year.

LOCAL FUNDING

Sacramento County, California, is moving ahead with a $3.6 billion, 30-year local sales tax. A deal struck by the Sacramento Transportation Authority will split these funds, with 70 percent going toward highways and streets and 30 percent toward transit. The county transit agency had reportedly anticipated as much as half of the new funding. In the first five years, three-quarters of the local road money would be used exclusively for repairing city streets. The proposal will need to be approved by the county board this summer and then supported by two-thirds of county voters in the November election.

We’ll see the results when we are in Sacramento November 16-17 for Transportation for America’s Capital Ideas state policy conference. Which reminds us…

Registration is now open for Capital Ideas, the premier conference on state transportation funding and policy, coming up this November 16-17, 2016, in Sacramento, CA. Sign up today to secure your seat and grab one of the limited number of discounted hotel rooms available.

As Sound Transit, the transit agency for metro Seattle, Washington, finalizes a $50 billion local funding plan to go before voters in November, free parking has become a major point of contention. The plan initially called for thousands of free parking spaces alongside new transit lines, but local leaders are calling for more housing and business development alongside transit stops, instead. Spokane-area voters will decide on a major expansion of transit service and the addition of a new bus rapid transit line at the ballot this November. Voters will consider a 0.1 percent sales tax increase in April 2017 with a second 0.1 increase to follow two years later and both running through 2028.

The county commission in Hillsborough County, Florida (which includes Tampa) voted 4-3 against putting a transportation sales tax measure on the November ballot. The long-debated measure would have raised new funding for highways and transit.

Stay up to date on all progress with state transportation funding and policy issues with our bill tracker.

A look at progress around the country on improving state transportation policy & raising new funding

Scores of state legislatures are still in session or nearing the end of their sessions. With transportation funding and policy on the docket in scores of states, here’s a roundup of the progress being made in states working to create more transparency, build more public trust in transportation spending, and even raise new money.

Many state legislatures are in the crunch time of crossover days and committee deadlines. Many more are already taking the long view and looking ahead to big policy changes later this year or after the next election. Here’s a roundup of the top stories:

Our refreshed state policy bill tracker is the best way to keep tabs on the most current information about these states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy — all tracked in three separate searchable, sortable tables of that information.

In addition, our hub for state policy and funding related resources includes all past and current reports, bill trackers, and other state-focused resources.

LOCAL FUNDING

After an up-and-down last few years when it comes to transportation funding, the Georgia state legislature successfully passed a pared-back bill last week that will allow voters in the City of Atlanta to decide the question of raising new funds for expanded transit service throughout the city, in addition to other transportation investments in the city.

A similar bill (SB 313) earlier this year would have allowed all counties served by MARTA to raise sales taxes for transit, but that one stalled due to opposition from outside the city. We wrote about the new alternative compromise package last week after its passage:

The legislation (SB 369) enables three new local funding sources, each dependent on approval through voter referenda. 1) The City of Atlanta can request voter approval for an additional half-cent sales tax through 2057 explicitly for transit, bringing in an estimated $2.5 billion for MARTA transit. 2) Through a separate ballot question the city could ask for another half-cent for road projects. 3) And in Fulton County outside the city, mayors will need to agree to a package of road and transit projects and ask voters to approve up to a ¾-cent sales tax to fund the projects.

The bill passed the House 159-4 on March 16 and passed the Senate last week, on the last day of the session.

While empowering local voters to raise new local funds is a step forward, the Georgia legislature also took a step back last week, passing a bill that requires a successful voter referendum before any county can spend money on fixed-guideway transit projects. Georgia doesn’t require a similar hurdle for highway projects. This bill (SB 420) exempts current MARTA service areas, the Beltline and the Atlanta streetcar, but it would slow down planned bus rapid transit projects in Cobb County in suburban Atlanta.

Support is building in Massachusetts for a proposal introduced by Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham), a START network member, to enable cities and towns to raise local taxes to fund transportation projects with approval through voter referenda. See some of the supportive arguments for Massachusetts’ bill here and here. T4America provided a national perspective and supported the bill at legislative briefing earlier this month at the capitol. Also briefing legislators was Mayor Greg Ballard, former mayor of Indianapolis, a region that recently gained legislative approval to raise local taxes for transit projects. Ballard provided lessons learned from his efforts at the state capitol and preparation for an expected ballot question this fall.

What’s the START Network?

We support efforts to produce and pass state legislation to increase transportation funding, advance innovation and policy reform, empower local leaders and ensure accountability and transparency through our State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training (START) Network of state and local elected officials, advocates and civic leaders. Join the START network today.

STATE FUNDING

Louisiana legislators just ended a special session on the budget without a comprehensive or long-term plan to fully close the state’s structural budget deficit. With more red ink looming in the state’s general budget, efforts to raise new revenue for the transportation fund face long odds.

Looking past the budget deficit, new Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) identified new Baton Rouge-to-New Orleans rail service as a priority, vowing to do “everything he could” to get new trains rolling.

Connecticut’s transportation committee advanced a “lockbox” provision (HJ 1) to dedicate certain revenue only for transportation projects. Republicans warn they will still oppose the measure unless the wording is tightened to prevent any diversion of money from the state’s special transportation fund. Constitutionally dedicating revenue from fuel taxes, vehicle fees, and a portion of the gas tax is seen as a necessary prerequisite to raising these taxes to bring in new money for transportation. While there is bipartisan support, at least in principle, a measure earlier this year failed to reach the necessary supermajority when a bloc of Republican House members said the measure would not go far enough in dedicating transportation dollars.

Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) called for big investments in all modes across the state in the 30-year, Let’s Go CT plan. But adding a new lane in each direction on I-95 across the state, one of the biggest and most expensive projects on the list, is drawing substantial opposition. Opponents note that a new lane will do little to ease traffic or advance the state’s 21st century knowledge economy. The state DOT counters that their plan for new capacity coupled with dynamic management through new electronic tolling would cut down on “induced demand” by making it more expensive, and so less desirable, for new drivers to fill new space on the roads.

A proposal in the Mississippi Senate to raise transportation taxes or issue bonds to fund road projects (SB 2921) was kept alive, but just barely. A procedural move allows negotiations to continue and may allow a last-minute agreement on the issue later in the session.

Minnesota’s legislature is in the fourth week of a short session that must conclude May 23. In that time, legislators will need to find $135 million for the next phase of the Twin Cities’ light rail system — or risk losing $895 million in federal funding and drastically setting back the planned project. Twin Cities local governments are expecting the state to do its part — they’ve already directed $118 million in local funding into the project. Transportation funding was a top issue in last year’s legislative session and members are again looking for a compromise to get more state funding— possibly including new revenue — to roads, bridges, and transit.

STATE REFORM

The Maryland House passed two bills to add objective scoring to the way the state DOT selects projects (HB 1013) and to create a new board to give local oversight over the state transit agency (HB 1010). Both measures are still being revised in the Senate; they must pass both chambers by the time the session ends on April 11th.

MOVING BACKWARD

Tennessee’s bill that would restrict gas tax receipts for any bicycle or pedestrian projects may be losing steam. The bill (HB 1650/SB 1716) was slowly making progress in the House, but this week the House delayed a hearing and the Senate scheduled a hearing for the bill on the last day of the session – a common way to signal the bill will not be passing this year.

FUNDING & POLICY TRACKER

You can access the full list of funding bills being considered and policies we are tracking throughout the country at our tracker here. As always, get in touch if there are bills you are working on that we should have our eyes on.

Georgia’s legislature moved last night to enable Atlanta to fund new transit & local projects

After an up-and-down last few years when it comes to transportation funding, the Georgia state legislature successfully passed a pared-back bill last night that will allow voters in the City of Atlanta to decide whether or not to raise new funds for expanded transit service throughout the city, in addition to other transportation investments in the city.

Thanks to state legislation, transit could be finally coming to Atlanta’s BeltLine, running alongside the popular trails. Photo via Beltline.org

Under a new law passed late night by the Georgia legislature in the dying hours of the session, the city will be able to put a question on the ballot to finally add transit to the one-of-a-kind Beltline around the city, expand existing bus and rail service, or fund other new transit projects. The city will also be able to raise new funds for streets and highways and the remainder of Fulton County (which surrounds and includes part of Atlanta) will be able to raise new local sales taxes for road and transit projects outside the city.

The legislation (SB 369) enables three new local funding sources, each dependent on approval through voter referenda. 1) The City of Atlanta can request voter approval for an additional half-cent sales tax through 2057 explicitly for transit, bringing in an estimated $2.5 billion for MARTA transit. 2) Through a separate ballot question the city could ask for another half-cent for road projects. 3) And in Fulton County outside the city, mayors will need to agree to a package of road and transit projects and ask voters to approve up to a ¾-cent sales tax to fund the projects.

After a bigger regional bill failed a few weeks ago that would have given the transit ballot authority to more counties and municipalities outside of the core city and Fulton county, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that last night’s bill “represents a compromise with GOP lawmakers who opposed an earlier plan put forth by Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta.”

That effort earlier in the session would have enabled a larger transit measure in Atlanta and both adjoining counties, Fulton and DeKalb. Opposition to new transit measures — especially in Fulton County — sunk that legislation and when that bill died a few weeks ago, it seemed at the time like the end of the line for new transit funding in this legislative session.

Last night’s compromise bill that emerged from the ashes will enable a new, long-term funding stream for transit in the city of Atlanta, where support is the strongest. If approved, the new funding would allow the largest expansion of MARTA in the system’s history and allow more transit to connect and permeate growing in-town neighborhoods.

LOOKING BACK IN ATLANTA

After an up-and-down last few years for transportation funding, this is a big win for the regional economic powerhouse of metro Atlanta.

T4America members like the Metro Atlanta Chamber have been hearing from their members (and potential recruits looking to locate in Atlanta) how important expanded transit is to the city and region’s future. In our widely-cited story from last year, we chronicled how employers in the city are increasingly locating near transit to attract a younger, talented workforce, including State Farm’s plan to build literally right on top of a northside MARTA station.

Dave Williams, VP of Infrastructure & Government Affairs for the Metro Atlanta Chamber and T4A Advisory Board member remarked, “We’re thrilled that MARTA will be back in expansion mode for the first time in more than 15 years. The measure that passed will give Atlanta the opportunity to generate over $2.5 billion in local funding for transit projects. It’s an extraordinary positive step to create more commuting options and there will be more to come.”

“This success resulted from many partners in our community collaborating, including business interests, civic groups, environmental concerns, labor and trades, and engaged citizens,” he added.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed called the failure of 2012’s massive regional transportation ballot measure that included an enormous list of road and transit projects the biggest failure of his political career. Back in the beginning of 2015 in our 15 things to watch in 2015 series of posts, we pointed to Mayor Reed as a person to watch last year, as he was trying to find a way forward on new transportation funding for the city.

[After 2012’s failed referendum, Reed] has often suggested that Atlanta might instead pair up with a few other nearby municipalities on a separate measure to raise funds for transportation. City of Atlanta and Dekalb county voters strongly favored the 2012 measure, so a joint Atlanta-DeKalb plan could be a possibility to watch for discussion of in 2015.

Which is pretty close to what happened this year.

After that 2012 mega-measure failed, they came close to getting new local funding authority for MARTA included in last year’s broad state transportation legislation which raised $900 million, mostly for road projects. But:

At one point during negotiations there was a provision that would have allowed the cities and counties that contribute to MARTA to increase the sales tax dedicated to the system by 0.5 percent via ballot measures, but this provision was removed from the final bill.

With potentially $2.5 billion to invest in new projects, if approved by the voters, MARTA Board Chairman Robbie Ashe told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that the regional transit agency is already working on a list of projects that could be funded through a new local tax in Atlanta.

“My best guess is the lion’s share would go to expanding the transit on the Beltline,” said Ashe, adding that the city might also contemplate building infill rail stations or extending a rail line by a stop or two.

Because of financial constraints, constructing transit lines along the entire 22-mile circle of the Beltline would likely have to be done in phases, rather than all at once, said Ashe.

This is welcome news, but they’re not finished yet. We’ll be watching closely as the city formulates their plan and begins to put together a campaign for a successful ballot measure, possibly as soon as this Fall.

This post was co-written by Dan Levine and Stephen Lee Davis

Massachusetts event highlights the growing trend of states moving to enable more local transportation funding

“Let the voters decide.” It’s a mantra we hear all the time in politics, but not quite as much in transportation. Yet that’s starting to change, as nearly a dozen states have taken steps to empower local communities with new or enhanced taxing authority for transportation over the last few years, putting the question directly in the hands of voters.

Update: (5:23 p.m.) WAMC radio story about the briefing is at the bottom of this post.

Like in Utah, where legislature moved in 2015 to increase the state’s gas tax, tie it to inflation, and then provide individual counties with the ability to go to the ballot to increase sales taxes to raise yet more dollars to invest in their local transportation priorities. Voters approved the 0.25% sales tax increase in ten of the 17 counties where it was on the ballot last November. And in Virginia, state legislators in 2014 created a new regional funding mechanism and boosted sales taxes in the state’s two biggest metro areas (Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads) explicitly and only for transportation projects.

This growing movement of states taking action to empower local communities and put questions in the hands of the voters was the hot topic at a legislative briefing in the Massachusetts state capitol this morning, sponsored by a host of organizations including Transportation for Massachusetts and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

MA policy breakfast james corless mayor ballard 2

From left, Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll, MAPC executive director Marc Draisen, Former Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, T4A Director James Corless (speaking), Pioneer Valley Planning Commission executive director Tim Brennan and Kristina Egan from Transportation for Massachusetts at this morning’s breakfast in the MA state capitol.

The briefing was in support of S1474 and H2698, bills in the Massachusetts legislature known as “enabling legislation” that would allow cities, towns or groups of cities new authority to raise one of four different sources of local taxes explicitly for local transportation projects.

Tracking state policy & funding

We are closely tracking this piece of state legislation and scores of others as part of our new resource on state transportation policy & funding. Visit our refreshed state policy bill tracker to see current information about the states attempting to raise new state or local funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent, and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy.

T4America Director James Corless kicked off the discussion speaking to his own experience with ballot measures in California. “There is no better way of rebuilding the transportation brand with voters than asking them to tax themselves for projects and then delivering those projects and making good on that promise,” he explained.

In Indiana, the legislature acted in 2014 to change state law and allow metro Indianapolis counties to have a long-awaited vote on raising income taxes to fund an ambitious new public transportation network built around bus rapid transit.

Former Indy Mayor Greg Ballard, who told the Indy Star that he’d “been to the Statehouse more on [Indy’s enabling legislation] than any other issue,” was shared a local perspective this morning on how important it is for local cities to have more of a hand in deciding their own future and staying competitive.

“This is all about attracting talent…the local option transportation tax is a critical tool for mayors because, let’s face it, mayors know best what their most pressing transportation problems are,” Mayor Ballard said.

“When I became mayor we had one transit line on a map. We had no bigger, regional vision. What our local option tax has done is allow us to think big. So we now want to take seven new transit lines to the voters, and the local option tax made it possible to embrace such an ambitious vision. People used to move for a job now they move for a place – that’s why transportation and quality life is critical to make your economy competitive.”

The leaders of Massachusetts’ cities and towns are eager to put the question to voters. Marc Draisen, executive director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in the Boston metro area, said, “This bill sets a high bar — you have to let local voters decide on their own future…if they don’t like it, they will reject it.”

And the Mayor of Salem, Kim Driscoll, said that as things stand now without the legislation, it’s an uphill battle for cities like hers to invest in what they most need to stay competitive.

“The ability to connect people to places is critical. But for a place like Salem we simply don’t have the tools to invest in the projects that can make that happen,” she said. “This bill would unlock great ideas in the communities that really want it”

T4America director James Corless reminded everyone that the success of local cities and towns are intrinsic to the state’s economic prosperity.

“The best ideas are coming from cities and towns; empowering communities and promoting innovation is essential to a strong future.”

Updated 5:23 p.m. — WAMC Northeast Public Radio did a story about this morning’s briefing. Read or listen to the story here. An excerpt:

State Senator Ben Downing is sponsoring a bill to enable a community or group of municipalities to enact a tax to finance local transportation projects.

“This is a way to control much more directly how we raise and how we spend money for transportation,” Downing said. “It’s also a way to guarantee that the dollars that are raised will stay in the community where they are raised.”

…Transportation for America Director James Corless says since 2013 10 states have passed similar legislation. “In part they realize Congress is not going to come to their rescue anymore and increasingly even state capitals are broke,” said Corless.

—

This story is part of the work of T4America’s START Network — State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training — for state elected leaders and advocates working on similar state issues.

Find out more and join today.

Tennessee charting a course to make streets more dangerous & hamstring local authority

A bill moving through the Tennessee legislature would severely curtail local control and authority over transportation spending, result in more dangerous streets, and prevent cities and towns of all sizes from investing in the wide range of transportation options that are key to their economic prosperity.

Sidewalks would be useful here on Nolensville Rd, a state highway that’s also a local street through Nolensville, TN southeast of Nashville. A new Tennessee law could prevent state gas tax dollars from being used to add them.

Less than a year after passing a statewide complete streets policy, at least two Tennessee state legislators are spearheading a fairly shocking legislative effort to curtail the flexibility that the state, cities and counties have to invest in the diverse types of transportation options that are demanded by their citizens and supported by scores of state and local elected leaders from across the state.

HB 1650 (with a companion in the Senate), as originally introduced and intended, would entirely ban the use of state gas tax revenue for building any sidewalks (even as part of a larger road project), bike lanes and trails, or other similarly cost-effective and popular projects to help make traveling on foot or by bike safer and more convenient.

But this bill goes further than a restriction on the projects that the Tennessee Department of Transportation plans and builds itself, however.

The bill would also narrowly restrict how a city or county could invest their share of gas tax dollars they receive back from the state. This bill would curtail the freedom and control communities of all sizes currently enjoy to invest these dollars however they choose.

Tracking state policy & funding

This bill is just one of many pieces of state legislation that we are tracking closely as part of our new resource on state transportation policy & funding.

Visit our refreshed state policy bill tracker to see current information about the states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent, and states (like Tennessee) taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy.

The bill has been opposed thus far by TDOT, in part because it would have a dramatic impact on safety and could prevent them from meeting decades-old, basic ADA requirements that require crosswalks and curb ramps and other basic safety and accessibility features — which could also jeopardize future federal funds for the state. While there’s potential for the bill to be amended to address the ADA issue and possibly allow sidewalk construction to some degree, the legislators appear to be intent on preserving the outright restriction of state funds for any on-street or off-street bike lanes or trails.

It’s a misguided attempt to save a state money, but considering that only about one percent of the entire state transportation budget goes to projects that make walking or biking safer or more convenient, it’s akin to trying to save money on your power bill by unplugging a single light bulb while running the AC at 60 degrees all summer.

The kicker is that Tennessee is already a national leader on evaluating proposed projects to find savings (or waste) and maximize the benefits of each dollar. We profiled them as a model to emulate in our recent report on smart state policies other states should consider:

In 2012, the Tennessee DOT (TDOT), in partnership with Smart Growth America, found that many transportation projects in its program could be redesigned to achieve 80-90 percent of benefits for as little as one-tenth of the initial proposed cost. After reviewing just the first five projects, TDOT found a cost savings of over $171 million through right-sizing the scope of work. In one project in Jackson County, TDOT was able to reduce the overall cost from an estimated $65 million to just $340,000 while still achieving the same safety and efficiency outcomes. As a result, TDOT has saved billions of dollars and stretched its limited resources even further (the state’s 21.4 cent per gallon gas tax was last raised in 1993, and the state operates its transportation program on a pay-as-you-go basis).

Check that math again: By re-scoping just one project, TDOT saved over $64 million dollars — equivalent to almost four full years of current state funding for safer streets and sidewalks.

There are indeed savings to be found, but curtailing local control and flexibility and making streets less safe for Tennesseans isn’t the solution.

TDOT’s leaders are already on board with awarding a small fraction of their budget — about half a percent of the state’s budget — to build a well-rounded transportation system, and they see how it supports the economic prosperity of the state and the safety of all citizens.

The state created a new Multimodal Access fund in 2013, which has competitively awarded about $10 million annually (out of a $1.8 billion annual budget) to “fund infrastructure projects that support the transportation needs of transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists by addressing gaps along the state highway network,” according to TDOT.

“Our responsibilities as a transportation agency go far beyond building roads and bridges,” TDOT Commissioner John Schroer said in their release for the 2015 grant awards. “Providing safe access for different modes of transportation ultimately creates a more complete and diverse network for our users. These projects are also extremely cost effective, which allows TDOT to make improvements in more areas across the state.”

The sponsors of the bill appear to be unaware of the potential impacts on public safety, the growing public support for these projects, or the sizable economic benefits these projects can bring. HB 1650 would not only end this small multimodal state grant program that’s supported smart, cost-effective projects (chosen on the merits) from across the state, but would also put an incredible burden on local governments by essentially requiring them to self-fund even the most basic sidewalk components of road-related projects.

Amy Benner, a Knoxville-based bike attorney and board member at Bike Walk Tennessee, talked to Streetsblog last week about the bill.

“Our concern is that it prevents localized communities from doing what they want to with their roadways. The way it’s currently written is going to potentially prevent projects that have already been researched and approved and the communities support and mayors have signed off on from happening.”

It’s shocking to contrast this with other forward-looking places that are scrambling to invest in a wide range of transportation options to grow their economies, attract talent, improve mobility and double down on the unique qualities that makes their cities successful.

Scores of cities are enjoying the economic returns of investing in a broader range of transportation options, whether the bus rapid transit systems in medium-sized cities, the massively successful bikesharing systems in cities large and small, the Cultural Trail in Indianapolis or the inspiring Atlanta Beltline in-town trail network that’s been a boost to the local economy.

It’s incredibly discouraging to see Tennessee legislators trying to turn back the clock by making it harder for the state, cities and counties to build safer streets, kneecapping their ability to stay economically competitive in the process.

It’s a “cure” that will only kill the patient.

—

This story is part of the work of T4America’s START Network — State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training — for state elected leaders and advocates working on similar state issues.

Find out more and join.

Maryland attempting to bring accountability & transparency into process for selecting transportation projects

Maryland is attempting to join the growing movement of states trying to ensure that transportation projects are selected and built on their merits in a more transparent process. T4America testified today in favor of a Maryland bill that would move the needle in that direction.

The Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act (HB 1013/S 0908) would define state goals and measures to score and choose transportation projects, helping to program scarce transportation dollars more objectively. The bill is similar to a new process approved by Maryland’s neighbors in Virginia several years ago, which we covered recently in detail here: “Virginia launches program to remove politics from transportation investment decisions.”

T4America was invited by several START network members in Maryland to offer a national perspective on the bill, and policy director Joe McAndrew testified in support earlier this afternoon. (Note: START is T4America’s State Transportation Advocacy, Research & Training Network for state elected leaders and advocates working on these issues. Find out more here. -Ed.)

Many Americans find the byzantine nature of their transportation system confusing, reducing their trust and inclination toward increasing investments for a 21st century transportation system. Who can blame them? …The public wants to know that transportation funds are being invested to provide not just movement but safe, reliable, affordable access to necessities like jobs, education, health care, and groceries. Measuring our limited investments in a way that matters to the public is critical going forward.

One thing was clear in today’s House Appropriations Committee hearing as local & state officials, delegates, and other citizens had a lively back and forth: Few people look at how the Maryland Department of Transportation chooses projects and feels like they have any clarity on how decisions are made.

Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Rahn, though testifying in opposition to the bill, isn’t opposed to bringing more transparency into that process, but he was reticent about this bill as the right solution.

“We are willing to study this concept to try and find a process that fits Maryland,” Rahn said. “That, I believe, is something that we can certainly agree to. But what’s come out of this process…is not Maryland. Rather than jumping into this to implement this now, should be a study so we can find something that’s more appropriate to Maryland.”

START Network members in Maryland, like Delegate Brooke Lierman (D-Baltimore), are hopeful and eager to work with Secretary Rahn (and other Delegates in the House and Senate) to amend and improve the bill, helping Maryland take this essential step.

Del. Lierman, while responding to MDOT director Pete Rahn’s testimony, questioned the impossibly opaque current system, holding up thousands of pages of project requests from counties where simple binary check marks were the only scores and suggesting that there was no way to know how projects were chosen.

What she and countless other Maryland taxpayers, local leaders or businesses really want to know after the state spends hundreds of millions more in transportation dollars over the coming few years, is: Will my commute get better? Will I end up with more options to get where I need to go each day? Are transportation projects being picked because they have political connections or because they make fiscal sense?

Projects in Maryland (and elsewhere) are rarely, if ever, justified through tangible, measured answers to these questions. And as a result, taxpayers understandably may have little confidence in handing over any more of their hard-earned money to invest in the system.

Even the Baltimore Sun knows that the current system is far from transparent, though coming down in favor of Maryland’s status quo in this fairly surprising recent editorial where they called politically motivated transportation spending an “unfortunate necessity” and “the grease that lubricates the squeaky political wheel.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds for transportation are far more important than political or partisan favors to be used to grease the skids. Taxpayers expect and deserve far more.

Maryland legislators should be applauded for this attempt to remove politics from the process of choosing which transportation projects to build — bringing some much needed transparency and accountability to a process that the public feels is murky, mysterious, and wholly political.

Stay up to date on the latest with state transportation policy & funding with our new resource for bill tracking.

Refreshed T4America bill tracker for following state transportation funding and policy progress

While at least 23 states have raised new funding for transportation at the state level since 2012, there’s a renewed focus on the underlying policies to make the most of limited infrastructure dollars. Which states are proposing to change to how those dollars are spent? Which states are working to create more transparency and build more public trust in transportation spending?

Click here to see our refreshed bill tracker.

For the last few years, we’ve been closely tracking the states attempting to raise new transportation funding. Now, we’ve adding a new resource to keep up with the states that are trying to change the underlying policies for spending those dollars. Are any states following the lead of others outlined in our last report, Twelve Innovations in Transportation Policy that States Should Consider?

Visit our refreshed state policy bill tracker to see current information about the states attempting to raise new funding in 2016, states attempting to reform how those dollars are spent, and states taking unfortunate steps in the wrong direction on policy.

Also, bookmark our new hub for all state policy and funding related resources. Past and current reports, bill trackers, and other helpful information for getting engaged at the state level with transportation funding and policy.

Want to know more about transportation demand management?

Join a webinar to learn how policies can leverage the private sector to manage transportation demand.

Join us on Friday, February, 26, 2015 at 1:00 PM EST to learn from two national experts on how states can get more out of their existing transportation networks by better managing travel demand. Patrick Sullivan of MassCommute explains how Massachusetts supports local transportation management and Brian Lagerberg of Washington State DOT shows the benefits of that state’s Commute Trip Reduction program (a policy we highlighted in our recent policy guidebook).

State update

Many legislatures are already wrapping up; others are just getting started for the year. Here’s a brief roundup of important transportation news coming out of state capitols over the last few weeks.

Maryland legislative leadership releases reform package

Leadership in the Maryland General Assembly called for new accountability in transportation project selection and rolled out a package of transportation reform bills. The Maryland Open Transportation Investment Decision Act (HB 1013/S 0908) defines state goals and measures to score and choose projects, helping to program scarce transportation dollars more objectively. Also included in the package is a bill to create a board of local appointees to oversee the state transit agency, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA).

New tolls to fund bridge repair in Rhode Island

Rhode Island governor Gina Raimondo (D) signed a bill to raise new revenue for maintaining and repairing bridges across the state by increasing new tolls for big trucks traveling the state’s interstates. The measure will add tolls of up to $20 on trucks crossing the state and is expected to raise $45 million annually to be directed to bridge repair. Rhode Island sits near the bottom of the list for greatest bridge repair needs, so legislators were wise to direct new funding to this growing demand and they may have landed a new, politically palatable revenue source. The trucking industry has voiced opposition, however, and legal challenges may be coming.

Mississippi sees an opportunity to raise state gas taxes

Mississippi legislators are discussing proposals to raise new revenue for transportation. The state’s fuel tax rate has not been changed in twenty-nine years and the state DOT reports that they need $526 million more annually to maintain and expand the state’s roads and bridges. With gas prices down, legislators think this may be an opportunity to hike fuel taxes without facing political consequences.

What’s next in New Jersey?

Legislators in New Jersey continue to look for ways to shore up a near-bankrupt state transportation fund. The state’s gas tax rate is currently the second lowest in the country and the state has heavily relied on bonding for the program. An astonishing 100 percent of gas tax revenues now collected are used to pay down the debt and costs of past projects. Without new money the program will go bankrupt when it hits its debt cap in July. In January the legislature recommended a constitutional amendment that would dedicate all fuel tax revenue to transportation projects. That measure will go to voters for approval this November. Transportation leaders hoped Gov. Chris Christie (R) would be more open to negotiations on this issue since suspending his presidential campaign, but his budget proposal offered no new revenue and he has dismissed that the impending bankruptcy even registers as a crisis.

Holding out for reform in South Carolina

South Carolina Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) is continuing a filibuster to block any new funding for transportation until the legislature passes reforms to the state transportation commission. Sen. Davis wisely notes that opportunities to completely reexamine the ways the state spends money on transportation projects are rare and legislators should not simply keep up existing processes and outdated priorities for another generation.

Local funding

Paying for free parking

Washington’s House transportation committee considered a bill to allow local governments and transportation districts to levy fees on free parking spaces in order to fund transportation. These local governments can already charge a fee on paid parking, so this proposal introduces equity for parking fees and also may serve as a subtle disincentive to the spread of free parking that encourage more trips and greater traffic congestion.

Local funding for transit

Georgia’s senate transportation committee has advanced a bill to allow metro Atlanta counties to raise new money for the MARTA regional transit system through a voter-decided, 0.5% sales tax increase. The bill is expected to be heard by the full Senate soon.

Keep up on these bills and many more on our refreshed bill tracker. If you are working on a bill we haven’t seen that should be added to the chart, let us know!

How many states will try to do something different in 2016?

With Congress finally wrapping up their five-year transportation bill in late 2015, the spotlight will burn even brighter on states in 2016. With 40 state legislatures now in session and six more set to begin in the coming weeks, how many states will raise new funding? How many states will attempt to improve how they spend their transportation dollars? How many will take unfortunate steps backwards?

As we highlighted in our most recent report that contained 12 recommendations for bringing state transportation policy out of the stone age, these state legislators will face the most critical of choices: continue pumping scarce dollars into a complex and opaque system designed to spend funds based more on politics than needs, or find a new approach that will boost state and local economies and restore taxpayer confidence in a broken system.

Here’s a short roundup of some of the states and bills that we’ll be watching.

Increases in funding on the horizon?

Louisiana’s new governor, John Bel Edwards (D), and a new legislature have highlighted transportation as a priority issue. Edwards’ transition team recommended a big ramp up in spending for transportation projects — and especially on rail, transit, freight and other key, non-highway projects that have long been neglected. The transition team also recommended that — to make those projects possible — the state will need to move ahead on staffing and setting up the new office of multimodal commerce created by the legislature in 2014 as a way to reform the Department of Transportation and Development and broaden the state’s transportation focus. A special legislative session on the state budget begins in mid-February. Transportation is unlikely to be included in this session, but legislators will be laying the groundwork for raising new funding in a later session or next year.

Following years of unsuccessful efforts, Missouri’s legislature is again looking for ways to raise new state revenue for transportation. A voter initiative in 2014 was defeated in part because it would have taxed metropolitan areas most heavily but not given cities the autonomy to spend these funds on their most pressing transportation needs. To get support for new funding — several bills have been introduced already this year — legislators will likely need to reform the way funds are distributed and spent, but few reforms have been offered.

A special transportation finance panel called by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) recommended multiple sources of financing to fund the state’s long list of repair needs and planned projects. But it called for the state to first implement several reforms, including setting aside fuel tax and toll revenues exclusively for transportation projects and for enabling new local or regional funding options to allow alternative funding for local priorities.

Colorado’s legislature is fielding a slew of calls for new ways to get more money to transportation projects. Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has called for a tax swap that would allow the state to spend existing revenue on transportation projects. Some transportation advocates have called for general obligation bonds, shifting money now used for road repair to pay for new projects, or a statewide ballot measure to increase revenue for transportation.

After months of publicly calling for state legislators to boost state transportation funding and barnstorming the state to make his case, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) has pushed the issue off the agenda until 2017. The call for new revenue got a chilly reception with state legislators, including leaders in Haslam’s own party. Fortunately, as we highlight in our report from two weeks ago, Tennessee’s DOT is already a leader in finding cost-effective solutions and saving state money by right-sizing their projects — keys to building trust and ensuring voters that any new money down the road will be well-spent.

New local funding

Local communities want and need to put their own skin in the game, and states should enable them to do so. Far too many states restrict the ability for locals to tax themselves to raise their own funds for transportation, but scores of other states are looking for ways to enable local communities to raise their own dollars for their most pressing needs.

A bill was introduced in Massachusetts by START Network member Rep. Chris Walsh (D-Framingham) to allow cities and towns to impose a payroll, sales, property, or vehicle excise tax to fund local transportation projects, including repair and new construction of streets, bridges, transit, and pedestrian or bike infrastructure. A bill in Wisconsin allows counties or municipalities to impose a temporary, 0.5-percent sales tax to raise money exclusively for street and highway repair. Both bills would require the new taxes to be approved by the local government and a voter referendum.

A 2013 transportation funding bill in Virginia added extra fuel and sales taxes for the state’s most populous urban regions of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to help them meet the large, complicated transportation demands. Two bills introduced this year add a new floor to the local supplemental tax equal to the amount that would have been charged in February 2013, already in place for the statewide wholesale rate, and increase the wholesale rate for the Hampton Roads region from 2.1-percent to 5.3-percent.

Measuring performance

Last month, Virginia Department of Transportation released its first list of projects scored and ranked to receive funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. This program is the result of a dogged focus by legislative leaders and the administration of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to reform the state’s transportation program. START members and other local leaders have had positive feedback thus far for the new system intended to increase transparency and public understanding of transportation investments by objectively screening and scoring transportation projects based on their anticipated benefits.

Massachusetts is in the midst of implementing a similar program that was created as part of the 2013 transportation funding package.

Moving backward

While legislators in many states are looking for ways to meet diverse transportation needs, some legislators are leading efforts to entrench systems that fund highways only. A bill passed out of Colorado’s Senate Transportation committee would eliminate $15 million in state money directed to transit from a 2009 funding bill. A bill in Tennessee would limit state transportation funds, including those distributed to cities and counties, exclusively for highways and bridges.