Skip to main content

Tag: t&I

Nine ways the House’s transportation proposal starts to make a “paradigm shift”

With the House’s INVEST in America Act being considered in committee on Wednesday, it’s a good time to look at what else beyond our core three principles in the bill are worth praising and potentially even improving.

Photo of Metroway (bus rapid transit in Northern Virginia) by BeyondDC on Flickr’s Creative Commons.

Most of the time, when we evaluate long-term transportation policy proposals or infrastructure bills from Congress, we start with a “good, bad, and ugly” post, but this House bill doesn’t fit well into that rubric. There’s a lot of great, some good, a few things that could use further refinement, and a couple of missed opportunities; but nothing that falls into the category of “bad,” much less “ugly.” It also has a lot of the same language in the INVEST Act introduced in the last Congress which stalled before a Senate vote, which also went 3 for 3 (after some modifications) on our scorecard.

With that in mind, here are nine specific things in the House bill (INVEST 2.0 for shorthand) that we wanted to highlight. Bear with us, this is a longer post!

1) Avoids the Senate’s cardinal sin of creating small, new programs to fix mistakes actively being perpetuated by the larger, unchanged, status quo transportation program

The overall approach of the last 30 years has been to create small, exciting new programs to fix established problems (safety, pollution, etc) while allowing the much larger core program to exacerbate and further those same problems.  This was our biggest complaint about the Senate’s bill from a few weeks ago. 

If you want to create a program to fix the issues created by running interstates through neighborhoods, you should also stop actively running interstates through neighborhoods. Or consider the issues of repair and maintenance. As we noted in our scorecard post, this bill doesn’t just create some new repair programs, it requires states to produce a plan to maintain any proposed new capacity while making progress toward their state of repair goals anytime they spend money from the biggest pot of highway funding. That’s the kind of new approach that the Senate completely missed, but the House is proposing to implement for key issues like repair, climate change, and others.

2) It recognizes that transportation is primarily about people and connecting them to what they need

The current federal transportation program does not require that states actively improve access to jobs and services for the real people who use the system every day. Say what? This is why the bulk of current transportation funding goes toward increasing vehicle speed, a “goal” that focuses on concrete and steel instead of the needs of actual people and where they need to go. This House bill kickstarts a huge shift toward focusing on people instead of vehicles by instituting a new performance measure that requires project sponsors to improve access to jobs and services by all modes. 

Under the House bill, state departments of transportation and regional planning organizations would have to measure whether all people traveling (not just driving) can reach jobs, schools, groceries, medical care, and other necessities. Further, states and MPOs would have to project the impact their projects would have on access and USDOT will review and publicly report their targets and progress. USDOT also has to collect that data and make it available to help with the measurement of multimodal access, and there are requirements to analyze the accuracy of the models and update direction to states and MPOs on how to improve access. 

While seemingly minor and perhaps a little wonky, this would mark a big shift in how transportation projects are evaluated. Measuring access—not vehicle speed—is a people-first way to consider the impact of the billions we spend on transportation each year. With this, we can create more equitable access to economic opportunity, lower transportation costs, and reduce emissions and the damaging climate and health impacts of them.

3) Nails all three of T4America’s core principles

Click to read our scorecard post

As we’ve done with every infrastructure proposal or long-term policy proposal for the last few years, we’ve produced a scorecard to evaluate how it starts to redirect transportation policy toward T4America’s three core principles of 1) maintaining the current system, 2) protecting the safety of people on the roads, and 3) getting people to jobs, schools, groceries and health care.  This bill nails all three of these principles  Read more about how the House bill advances these three simple priorities in this post with the scorecard.

4) Advances our proposal to start tearing down divisive infrastructure and repairing the damage

Since 2020, with help from Third Way, T4America has been advancing a policy to undo the damage of “urban renewal” projects that have displaced more than a million Americans since construction of the Interstate Highway System and that continue to harm communities of color today.  Our plan focuses heavily on creating a competitive grant program to redesign or deconstruct things like divisive highways, and creating strategies to prevent displacement so that this work generates wealth for the communities that suffered most, in addition to a few other strategies.

What the sunken, divisive Rochester Inner Loop used to look like, before being filled in and replaced with a surface boulevard. The House bill would kickstart efforts like this across the country. Flickr photo by Friscocali

The House runs with our proposal through a $3 billion ($600 million a year) Reconnecting Neighborhoods program, which is six times larger than a similar proposal in the Senate bill. This program will analyze neighborhood barriers (like interstates) and identify candidates for remediation, repurposing, or removal. In addition, part of that money can also be used to establish a community advisory board or a land trust to preserve the new wealth for those most affected by the divisive infrastructure. There are some details we’d like to enhance, but this idea has gained incredible traction over the last year and we are excited about the possibilities for the future.

5) Recognizes that you must address climate change within the entire transportation program

Download our report on lowering emissions through better land use and transportation

Transportation is the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States, and the majority of them come from driving. The bill addresses the entirety of the transportation program by establishing a new greenhouse gas performance measure and requiring states to set positive targets to reduce emissions. It gives states the latitude to figure out their own preferred path to hitting those targets, but we know that infrastructure investments that give people more options than hopping in the car are key to reducing these emissions. INVEST 2.0 creates programs to fund these projects at both the state and city levels.

While making it easier to drive less overall should be central to our short-term climate and transportation strategy, we do need to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles as well. This is why we’re part of a unique coalition called CHARGE—the only “electric vehicle” coalition where improving and expanding public transit is the first priority. This bill creates a new program to build electric vehicle charging stations along corridors and sets standards to require them to be open to the public and work with all kinds of electric vehicles.

There are also some good provisions targeted at making the transportation system more resilient to climate change and making resilience an eligible use in the largest highway programs. One place where the bill could be improved is to require resilience to be built into the design of all projects. 

6) Measuring access to jobs and services is one of the best ways to address equity, but this bill includes others

As noted above, requiring agencies to measure and improve access to jobs and services for all people is perhaps the single greatest change to remake transportation policy in a more equitable way. But INVEST 2.0 would also improve equity in other ways—something we wrote about at length last summer in the context of the House’s very similar 2020 proposal. Prioritizing access, investing in more and better transit, building safer streets for people, and investing in what we have would all have an impact on equity. Considering the similarities between that bill and this year’s INVEST in America Act, that evaluation still stands.

7) Support for expanded national passenger rail

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) addresses an enormous crowd in Gulfport during a rally for restoring Gulf Coast passenger service. Photo by Steve Davis / T4America

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. This bill creates a new $5 billion a year program for high speed and intercity rail investments, triples the funding for the existing program for improved safety and efficiency in passenger and freight rail service, and funds Amtrak at $32 billion over the life of the bill.

The House incorporated several of our other recommendations, including updating the Amtrak Board to have better representation from riders and the national network as well as the Northeast Corridor. More importantly, it allows for the formation of more multi-state rail commissions like our partners the Southern Rail Commission, which has been the key to (almost!) restoring passenger service along the Gulf Coast, and provides funding for them to operate. 

There is some opportunity to strengthen the authorities for the Federal Railroad Administration and the Surface Transportation Board to prevent the freight railroads from obstructing or interfering with that service.

8) A strong commitment to transit…

INVEST 2.0 provides over $21 billion for transit, a sizable increase over the current $13 billion program, and it also includes some funding for operations—a major win, as operations funding has typically been a no-go with federal funds. Funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program and even the core Surface Transportation program can be used for transit operations. There’s also a new one-time competitive grant program to support capital and operations costs associated with addressing transit deserts through better, more frequent transit service.  

Improving service frequency is a big focus of the bill. There is a new $100 million competitive grant program for transit agencies collaborating with state or local governments to increase bus frequency and ridership by redesigning urban streets to better move transit (and more people) in congested areas. There is also a change to the funding formula that prioritizes frequency.

9) But with opportunities for greater improvements on transit

While the bill makes some important changes and does slightly increase its share compared to highways, the bill does not hit T4America’s priorities of equalizing transit funding with highway funding, nor does it create long term support for keeping transit running. We will be once again turning to leaders on Capitol Hill to move these efforts forward. Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia of Illinois has led the effort to invest in transit as strongly as we do highways, and we hope he uses this bill as an opportunity to push that effort forward.

READ: Letter of support for Rep. Johnson bill, signed by ~100 organizations (June 9, 2021)Download

On the operations side, Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia is leading an effort to create a federal program for transit operating support. The Stronger Communities through Better Transit Act would create a new grant program available to all transit agencies, rural and urban, to increase service frequency so that people don’t have to wait so long for the bus; to provide additional hours of service so that those who don’t work regular hours can still get to their jobs; and to add new, frequent service in the region. We are proud supporters of that bill and we encourage you to tell your House rep to join Rep. Johnson as a sponsor. 

Tell your representative to support a bill to increase funding for transit operations

House transportation proposal focuses on updating nation’s outdated transportation policy to get better results

press release

The House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s proposal for long-term transportation policy makes repair, safety, climate change, and access to jobs and services core goals for the bill’s spending, rather than just nice add-ons— taking a dramatically different approach than the Senate’s long-term proposal. 

WASHINGTON, DC — “Federal transportation policy has been on autopilot for two decades, blindly pouring money into the same old programs and hoping for miracles when it comes to producing a transportation system that works for all Americans, keeps them safe, is well maintained, and helps meet our goals for reducing emissions and addressing climate change,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “As with the House’s proposal in the last Congress, Chairman DeFazio once again lays the groundwork for finally updating our country’s 1950’s approach to transportation to meet 21st Century needs.

“The proposal that Chairman DeFazio released today takes last summer’s fairly groundbreaking INVEST Act and improves on it. We are particularly happy to see the inclusion of a program to address transit deserts and another program to reconnect communities divided by transportation infrastructure, like highways. 

“Like last summer’s bill, this proposal includes reforms to the core, fundamental programs to ensure that states prioritize repair, make safety a primary goal, and make access to jobs and opportunities a priority for the billions we invest each year. This is a paradigm shift from the approach of the last 30 years of proposing small, exciting new programs to fix recognized problems while allowing the much larger core program to exacerbate and further those same problems.

“That’s the kind of fundamentally new approach we need, and we are excited to work with the Committee to make it even better. We hope the Senate takes some cues and that both Democrats and Republicans focus their efforts on a proposal that generates better outcomes, rather than agreeing to prop up a stale and destructive status quo,” Osborne said.

###

Here’s how the new House bill prioritizes getting people where they need to go

It’s surprising, but the current federal transportation program doesn’t actually require that states spend federal funds to improve people’s access to jobs and services. This is why the bulk of transportation funding goes to increasing vehicle speed, a “goal” that fails to help many people get where they need to go. The new transportation proposal from the House of Representatives fixes that with a powerful new performance measure and grant programs. 

The House transportation committee is marking up and voting on the INVEST Act this week. View our amendment tracker here, get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, visit our hub for all T4America content about the INVEST Act, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

There’s a reason why Transportation for America’s third principle for transportation policy is to connect people to jobs and services, because instead of measuring transportation success by how many jobs and services people can get to, our current federal transportation policy considers how fast cars can drive on specific segments of road.

Here’s how a new performance measure and grant programs in the House’s five-year INVEST Act would start to focus transportation funding on what counts: getting people where they need to go.

The current approach is broken

To determine if you had a successful trip, you probably think about getting from point A to point B and how long that trip would take. But transportation agencies don’t measure success that way: they instead measure whether or not your vehicle was moving quickly at some point of the trip. Whether or not you actually arrived isn’t measured. This metric of “success” ignores those who can’t or don’t drive, take transit, or are mobility impaired. This doesn’t mean drivers are loving life either though: they may be able to go fast but still feel trapped in their car for too much of the day to get to the things they need. Vehicle speed isn’t a good measure of whether or not people can conveniently access the things they need in their daily lives.

We think it is time to consider how well the transportation system provides access to jobs as well as all other necessities, from the grocery to the bank to school and health care. Access is not only a much better measure, areas with high accessibility allow people to access opportunities and necessities even if they’re not able to afford to drive alone. So this measure captures whether our communities provide equitable access to opportunity, allow for healthy and active living, and contribute less to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as pollutants that harm public health.

And now, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure brought this important concept into their vision for the future of the nation’s transportation program .

How this game-changing performance measure works

The INVEST Act creates a new performance measure that requires project sponsors to improve access to jobs and services by all modes. While seemingly minor, this marks a huge shift in how transportation funding would be allocated—especially because project sponsors will be penalized if they fail to use federal funding to improve access. The Virginia Department of Transportation has been doing this successfully for years, but this type of performance measure has not been tried across the nation yet and has never been attempted at the federal level before.

Under the INVEST Act, states and MPOs must consider whether people traveling (not just driving) can reach jobs, schools, groceries, medical care and other necessities. And they will be penalized if they fail to use federal funding to improve that access.

New grant programs will also support this approach

The INVEST Act authors know that transportation doesn’t exist in a vacuum: housing plays a huge role in how many jobs and services people can access. Putting housing (and especially attainable housing) close to transit is a powerful way to increase access to jobs and necessities. That’s why the bill requires the Federal Transit Administration to create the Office of Transit-Supportive Communities to provide funding, technical assistance, and coordination of transit and housing projects within the U.S. Department of Transportation and across the federal government. Further, this proposal adds affordable housing into the planning considerations for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state DOT Transportation Improvement Programs, as well as for future transit capital grants.

The new Community Transportation Investment Program also solidifies the importance of access as a measure of success to the federal transportation program. The INVEST Act authorizes $600 million per year for competitive grants to localities and agencies for projects which improve safety, state of good repair, access to jobs and services, and the environment by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop a system to objectively evaluate projects on program criteria, and develop a rating system which can be used to compare the benefits and costs of each application—as with Virginia’s Smart Scale program.

How these policies will actually improve the transportation system

Measuring access—not vehicle speed—puts transportation projects, regardless of mode, on an even playing field. Technologies like GIS and cloud computing makes it easier for states and MPOs to determine whether their system is connecting people in residential areas to jobs and services by all means of travel. With this information, project sponsors can consider all kinds of transportation projects and all transportation users equally. States and MPOs can also see when it is more cost-efficient to build the things people need closer to them, rather than defaulting to building expensive, new transportation projects to make far away necessities less inconvenient to travel to. With this, we can create more equitable access to economic opportunity, lower transportation costs, and reduce emissions and the damaging climate and health impacts of them.

The federal transportation program as we know it was largely created to increase vehicle speeds across the country, connecting the nation through a network of highways. Now that those highways are built, and we thoroughly understand the consequences of speed—both in terms of loss of life and failure to improve travel times and cost—it’s time to use technology to connect federal funding to the transportation outcomes we need. We’re pleased to support this new performance measure and accompanying grant programs in the INVEST Act.

UPDATED: Amendment to the House’s INVEST Act *will* close the repair loopholes

UPDATE, June 17: This amendment was accepted by unanimous consent in the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We thank Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García, and Rep. Mike Gallagher for their tremendous support and leadership.

The House’s transportation bill is being debated and voted on starting Wednesday, June 17th, and a vital new amendment would strengthen the repair provisions in the bill, helping to strengthen the bill’s language and better align it with the legislative goal of prioritizing maintenance over new road capacity.

The House transportation committee’s markup of the INVEST Act starts at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. View our amendment tracker here, get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, visit our hub for all T4America content about the INVEST Act, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

As we wrote last week about some of the shortcomings in the INVEST Act’s repair provisions: 

When we first read through the INVEST Act last week we were excited to see that the committee clearly made a good faith effort to prioritize maintenance and after a cursory look we were inclined to give it a passing grade on our first principle of prioritizing repair. But the deeper we looked into the language, the more we saw the loopholes. …the INVEST Act’s fix-it-first language still needs to be strengthened to ensure a true focus on prioritizing repairing what we have before building new things that come with expensive, long-term repair costs. There were three misses in the House’s approach, but all can be fixed if the House is truly committed to ensuring that we preserve and maintain our existing transportation network.

We’re pleased to report that there has been a bipartisan amendment offered for tomorrow’s markup that would address the concerns outlined last week. Amendment #63 from Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL), co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI), would make three important changes: 

1) Require a maintenance plan
If your state or metro area wants to use core highway dollars for building new capacity, then they must present a financial plan for maintaining it. This is already true for transit, and it should be true for roads. The amendment would require a public plan for maintaining the new road while also maintaining the existing system. It is vital that we finally start requiring states to prove they can maintain what they’re building with the billions that they are given.

2) It will be hard to justify new road capacity with old models.
The INVEST Act requires states planning new capacity road projects to perform benefit-costs analyses (BCAs), but this amendment requires them to use demand models with a demonstrated track record of accuracy. The models in current use don’t have a good track record.

3) Require a more complete accounting of the benefits and costs.
The INVEST Act includes a new host of performance measures, including greenhouse gas emissions, and access to jobs and services. This amendment would require states planning new capacity projects to consider the benefits of ALL the performance measures, including new ones created by the bill. Without the amendment, project sponsors could have chosen one measure, like the narrow measure of “congestion reduction,” which is so often used to justify projects which just induce new driving, failing to consider the other priorities of the program like safety, emissions and access.

Who supports this amendment?

So far, in the limited time since it was released before markup began:

  • Transportation for America
  • Bipartisan Policy Center
  • League of American Bicyclists
  • League of Conservation Voters
  • National League of Cities
  • National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
  • Taxpayers for Common Sense

We’ll be keeping tabs on this amendment and others that are going to be considered as the House transportation committee starts debating and voting on these amendments starting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. Learn more about amendments and view our tracker here.

For those of you that live in a district represented by a Member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, you can send a message to your rep with this page and urge them to support the INVEST Act and to support this very necessary amendment. If you’re not sure if your rep is on the committee, just go on over to take action and the form will let you know.

TAKE ACTION

Note: This amendment was accepted by unanimous consent in the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Thank you Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García, and Rep. Mike Gallagher for your tremendous support and leadership.

House transportation bill goes big on climate

House transportation leaders introduced legislation to update our national transportation program to address climate, equity, safety and public health. Climate advocates and climate leaders on the Hill should recognize the strides taken with this proposal from Congress and fight to protect those changes in the bill.

This is a joint post by Transportation for America and Third Way, co-written by Rayla Bellis, T4America program manager, and Alexander Laska, Third Way Transportation Policy Advisor for the Climate and Energy Program. It is also posted on Third Way’s site. 

The House transportation committee’s markup of the INVEST Act starts at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. View our amendment tracker here, get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, visit our hub for all T4America content about the INVEST Act, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

While it isn’t perfect, the INVEST Act introduced in the House takes some very important steps, including:

  • Measuring and tracking important outcomes like GHG emissions and access to jobs and services.
  • Making significant progress towards electrifying our vehicle and transit fleets; and
  • Supporting investments in low emissions transportation modes, including:
    • Supporting transit with more money and better policy; and
    • Supporting biking and walking with a comprehensive approach to improving safety.

For too long, federal transportation policy has prioritized car travel and the infrastructure to support it while neglecting cleaner and more affordable transportation options like transit, walking, and biking. We are now seeing the consequences of decades of spending in line with those priorities: car-ownership is a prerequisite for participating in the economy in most communities, and many people are driving further every year to reach work and daily necessities. It is unsafe, inconvenient, or flat-out impossible to reach those destinations by any other means in much of the country. As a result, transportation is now the nation’s single largest source of greenhouse gases (GHG), accounting for 29 percent of emissions, 83 percent of which comes from driving. While cars and trucks will and should remain an important part of our transportation system, any effective strategy to reduce emissions from transportation must make it easier for Americans to take fewer and shorter car trips to access work and meet basic needs.

Last week the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released their transportation reauthorization proposal. Third Way and Transportation for America unveiled a scorecard earlier this week to show how the new House reauthorization proposal and previous Senate proposal stack up against the recommendations in our new Transportation and Climate Federal Policy Agenda. The House bill makes significant strides in several areas in line with our federal policy agenda:

Measures and tracks important outcomes

We measure all the wrong things in our transportation system and therefore get the wrong outcomes. Instead of measuring whether people can get where they need to go (e.g., jobs, healthcare, and grocery stores), we measure how fast cars are moving. Rather than being required to reduce transportation emissions, states are distributed more money if their residents drive more and burn more gasoline.

The House bill takes important steps in reversing these perverse incentives. It requires states to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their transportation system (a similar requirement from USDOT was rolled back early in the Trump administration). States that reduce emissions can be rewarded with increased flexibility, while states that fail to reduce emissions will face penalties. This is a major shift, and it will lead to significantly different outcomes if states are truly held accountable to these requirements.

In addition, the bill requires a new performance measure to help states and MPOs evaluate how well their transportation systems provide access to jobs and services. This access measure is monumental. For the first time at the national level, recipients of federal transportation funding will be required to measure whether their transportation system is performing its most essential function: connecting people to the things they need, whether they drive, take transit, walk or bike. This will have profound impacts in communities, including directing more funds to projects that shorten or eliminate the need for driving trips. It also happens that providing a high level of access, especially for nondrivers, correlates with lower GHG emissions.

Makes significant progress towards electrification

Decarbonizing our transportation system will require us to transition quickly to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)–and that means making sure we have the infrastructure ready to support those vehicles. The INVEST In America Act establishes a new $1.4 billion program to deploy electric vehicle charging and hydrogen fueling infrastructure in public places where everyone will have access. The grant program will focus on projects that demonstrate the most effective emissions reductions. We believe the program should additionally focus on ensuring this infrastructure is accessible to low-income communities; this, combined with policies to make ZEVs more affordable, will help ensure all Americans can benefit from the air quality improvements and other benefits of clean vehicles.

The bill also reorients federal funding for transit buses towards electric vehicles by boosting funds for the Low- and No-Emission Vehicle Program five-fold, incentivizing the purchase of electric fleets, and requiring a plan for transitioning to a 100 percent electric bus fleet. This improved program, and other transit reforms, will help transit agencies procure electric and other clean buses, as well as the refueling infrastructure to support them. Transit is already a lower-carbon alternative to driving, and shifting our fleet towards clean buses will make it even more so. Ultimately, all federal funding for bus procurement should go towards low- and no-emission buses, but the significant increase for this program is a good start.

Supports transit with more money and better policy

Too many Americans must drive because they either are not served by transit or only have access to infrequent, unreliable, and inconvenient service. Transit has been underfunded for decades at the federal level despite the significant benefits it provides to communities: reduced emissions, improved economic opportunity, a way out of  congestion, cleaner air, mobility choice, better health outcomes, and improved quality of life. Our failure to invest sufficiently in transit has disproportionately impacted low-income people and people of color, who are more likely to rely on transit to access jobs and services.

The House bill gives transit a big increase in overall funding: 47 percent. Equally importantly, however, it changes some policies that have long obstructed transit as a truly viable option in communities. For years, federal transit funding has incentivized lowering operating costs (usually accomplished by offering less or infrequent service) at the expense of building transit that best serves people’s needs. The new bill includes policies that shift those incentives, focusing instead on frequency of service. This will make transit a real option for more people in more communities. 

Supports biking and walking with a comprehensive approach to improving safety

Dangerous road conditions pose one of the biggest barriers to taking short trips by walking or biking in many communities, leading to unnecessary driving trips that increase traffic and emissions. Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed 49,340 people walking on streets nationwide, and pedestrian fatalities have risen by 35 percent over the past decade. People of color, older adults and people walking in low-income communities are disproportionately represented in these fatal crashes.

The House proposal takes a comprehensive approach to make walking and biking safer through a combination of increased funding, policy reform, and better provisions to hold states accountable. For example:

  • The bill requires Complete Street design principles and makes $250 million available for active transportation projects including Complete Streets.
  • It proposes changes to how speed limits are set to prioritize safety results over a faster auto trip.
  • It requires states with the highest levels of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities to set aside funds to address those needs.
  • The bill would also prohibit states from the current practice of setting annual targets for roadway fatalities that are negative—in other words, targets that assume the current trend line of increased fatalities is unstoppable, essentially accepting more fatalities every year as an unavoidable cost.

The House bill isn’t perfect, but is a significant improvement over the Senate’s proposal

While the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s proposal takes many steps in the right direction, it still misses the mark in some areas based on our agenda. It still includes significant funding for highways without the proper restrictions in place to avoid unnecessary buildout of new lane-miles we can’t afford to maintain, and congestion relief is still a primary goal embedded throughout the proposed program. This ultimately prioritizes the same types of transportation investments we have seen for decades.

Yet, the House bill takes significant steps that the Senate EPW bill introduced last year did not. In contrast to the broad, holistic approach the House bill takes to addressing emissions, the Senate bill introduced some new (but relatively weak) stand-alone programs to address emissions, congestion, and other important topics. Importantly, the Senate bill did not make any needed changes to the core federal formula programs, continuing to direct the vast majority of funding into programs that incentivize building high-speed roads and making travel by any means other than driving — and emitting — impossible for most Americans.

Bottom line: the House’s proposal could be a game-changer for climate, equity, and safety goals

The House’s proposal introduces more substantial reforms to our national transportation program than we have seen in years, and many of the changes will directly support reduced emissions, environmental justice, and other important goals. This is a big deal, but the magnitude of the changes may not be readily apparent. Many of the most transformative proposals do not sound like climate initiatives because they do not specifically reference emissions or address electrification. Instead they change funding formulas, policies, and performance measures that, over decades, have produced a transportation system that requires more and longer car trips and greater emissions.

Climate advocates and climate leaders on the Hill should recognize the strides taken with this proposal from Congress and fight to protect those changes in the bill. Advocates for preserving the status quo are preparing to fight these important changes. We need climate advocates to do the same to defend them.

The House bill needs some changes to make repair the number one priority

UPDATE, June 17: A bipartisan amendment to fix the issues we detailed below was accepted by unanimous consent in the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Thank you Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Jesús G. “Chuy” García, and Rep. Mike Gallagher for your tremendous support and leadership. View our amendment tracker for the INVEST act here, get real-time updates by following @t4america on Twitter, and take action by sending a message to your representative if they sit on this House committee.

The House’s new INVEST Act made a strong effort to prioritize maintenance, but there are still loopholes that can allow states and metro areas to avoid the legislative intent of a real, concrete focus on repair first. Here’s a run down on our concerns with the repair provision and how it could be strengthened in next week’s markup in the House transportation committee.

Flickr photo of bridge resurfacing by WSDOT. https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/49921039787

We’ve spent 60-plus years building an unparalleled highway system with hundreds of thousands of bridges, in addition to scores of metropolitan transit networks and a network of other streets. But we have failed to steward our assets well. For no good reason at all, we’re still spending money like it’s 1956, expending money we don’t have to build roads we can’t afford to maintain which fail to bring the promised economic returns—all while neglecting repair needs. Liberals have supported and aggressively funded the status quo, ignoring the transportation program’s impact on climate, public health, and access to opportunity. Conservatives have joined them, failing to take a stand for bedrock values of good stewardship of federal dollars and keeping federal spending low. We must make repair and maintenance the core, number one priority of the federal transportation program. We cannot afford to keep expanding our system without any plan for maintaining it.

When we first read through the INVEST Act last week we were excited to see that the committee clearly made a good faith effort to prioritize maintenance and after a cursory look we were inclined to give it a passing grade on our first principle of prioritizing repair. But the deeper we looked into the language, the more we saw the loopholes.

It is indeed a major change that the committee proposes dedicating 20 percent of the two biggest sources of state DOT funds toward repair. In addition, states have to fulfill some new conditions to add new capacity with the largest highway program. Both are good steps and we applaud them. However, the INVEST Act’s fix-it-first language still needs to be strengthened to ensure a true focus on prioritizing repairing what we have before building new things that come with expensive, long-term repair costs. There were three misses in the House’s approach, but all can be fixed if the House is truly committed to ensuring that we preserve and maintain our existing transportation network.

1) Too many definitions are either missing, or too vaguely defined

Because the committee left a lot of the vital details to the USDOT Secretary to determine via regulatory language, the final verdict on repair won’t be decided in the legislation (as it should). As an example, for states to add new capacity with core highway funds, they have to fulfill three conditions: They have to demonstrate that they are making progress on repair, they have to consider operational improvements and transit and show that expanding roadway capacity is more cost-effective than either, and they have to demonstrate that the expansion project would meet another performance target, like congestion reduction.

Those three terms in italics will be left up to the USDOT rulemaking process, and can already have a long history of being manipulated to add new capacity. It would help to put more explicit parameters on what defines “progress on repair.” Does it mean meeting the state or MPO’s own repair targets, which could be unambitious? And when it comes to measuring cost-effectiveness and benefit cost analysis, the way these have been applied to transportation projects in the past have overstated the benefits of highway capacity expansions and undervalued or failed to value climate, equity and public health benefits. 

2) To truly prioritize repair, states should prove they can maintain the new things they build

Even if states fulfill these conditions above to add new capacity, there’s no language requiring the project sponsor to prove they can maintain the asset they are building. This is a big miss, and this is one of the primary reasons we’re all in this mess in the first place.

Even if states make valuable and measurable progress on state of good repair, it would be negligent to allow them to build new things without requiring that they consider and plan for how they will take care of them. You don’t buy a house when you manage to secure some of the upfront costs (a downpayment), you also have to prove to the bank that you have a plan for paying that monthly mortgage for the next 15 or 30 years. We already require transit capital project sponsors to provide a plan for long-term maintenance when they apply for federal funding. It’s time to start requiring this degree of stewardship and responsibility to a highway program that has been sorely lacking it. Simply adding this as a core requirement to the conditions for expansion via an amendment could bring about this powerful change. 

3) All the tools the states have to fulfill this repair focus were designed to justify new highways

The biggest challenge here is that the House is counting on an entrenched culture that was organized around the building and expanding a national highway system to accomplish something entirely new. The tools that transportation agencies have at their disposal—the ones the House is asking them to use to fulfill this new focus on repair—were developed specifically to justify new highways. Without other changes, they will continue to do so. 

The transportation demand models assume the same amount of driving in a neighborhood built only for cars as they do for a neighborhood built for walking. These models do not foresee that making space on a highway might invite more driving in the space cleared up. They often predict, strangely, that narrowing a lane in the city from 12 to 10 feet somehow means that the road can accommodate fewer 6-7 feet wide vehicles. These tools are old, flawed and often wrong. Comparing costs and benefits is a great idea, but we need to make clear that the benefits should be calculated in a way that is reasonably likely to be correct. And that can be done by simply asking the agencies to look back and report on how often their projections actually turn out to be right when making a justification for a massive new investment with taxpayer dollars.

We are hopeful that we’ll be able to report news of a specific amendment to make many of these fixes when the committee considers the bill, so stay tuned. We will need your support!

Wrapping up

If infrastructure is as bipartisan as everyone always claims then commonsense should prevail on this point. Republicans should care deeply about conserving taxpayer funds. Democrats should care about climate and equity impacts. Both should seek to maintain faith and public trust in the program. Strengthening these repair provisions should be an easy, bipartisan win and we urge Chairman DeFazio and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members to make it happen.

House builds on the FAST Act’s change to provide better and more balanced passenger rail service

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.

This is the first of a series of deeper dives into specific areas of the House’s transportation reauthorization proposal. Stay tuned for longer looks at repair (and how it can be improved), climate, access, and others. Read our statement on the bill, how it stacks up to our core three principles, and a quick look at nine other things—good and bad—to know.

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.

House bill charts a course for updating country’s outdated transportation policy

press release

The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I) in the U.S. House released a draft proposal for long-term surface transportation policy today that would replace the existing FAST Act, which expires this year. The INVEST (Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation) in America Act takes a markedly different approach to transportation policy that would begin to put outcomes—instead of price tags—at the center of our decision making.

WASHINGTON, DC — “Past reauthorizations have been an exercise in spending more money and magically wishing for better outcomes with outdated policy, which was always foolish,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “With this new proposal from Chairman DeFazio, the INVEST in America Act, the House is charting a welcome course toward updating our country’s 1950’s approach to transportation.”

“The typical fixation on the price tag has prevented us from realizing a path forward. First propose a new set of policies for accomplishing some key goals—fix it first, safety over speed, and improving access to jobs and services—and then rally people to pay for that vision. The House is proposing significant changes to the core highway program by requiring states to prioritize road and bridge repair (and setting money aside for that purpose), measure and reduce greenhouse gases, improve access to jobs and opportunity with every dollar spent, and make safety—for everyone—paramount. Many of the changes made on the transit side are also oriented around improving access, like incentivizing transit agencies to increase frequency rather than merely reducing operating costs, which can help provide better service where it’s needed most, rather than just adding service in places where it’s the most cost-effective,” said Osborne.

“The safety of everyone using our transportation system should always have been the number one priority for the dollars that we spend, but we have utterly failed with America reaching the highest number of pedestrians struck and killed by vehicles in three decades,” said Emiko Atherton, director of the National Complete Streets Coalition. “Thanks to the hard work of Rep. Cohen who introduced the Complete Streets Act and saw many of those ideas incorporated here, safety will once again be paramount.”

“This is a transportation bill, but the committee is to be commended for also recognizing the inextricable connections to land use, specifically affordable housing,” said Christopher Coes, vice president of land use and development at Smart Growth America. “We’ll never be able to realize our climate goals or an equitable economic recovery without also providing more attainable housing in places where people can drive less and walk or take transit more. This bill takes some important steps forward by moving to integrate housing and land use into existing transportation planning and creating a new federal office to coordinate these plans equitably. But more is needed, including new standards to reduce overall housing plus transportation costs, which are often far out of reach for many Americans.”

“Let’s hope some of the leaders in the Senate take a look and transfer their enthusiasm to this more ambitious approach, instead of their expensive proposal to nibble around the edges of a broken status quo,” concluded Osborne.

###

Transportation for America, the National Complete Streets Coalition are all programs of Smart Growth America. Smart Growth America envisions a country where no matter where you live, or who you are, you can enjoy living in a place that is healthy, prosperous, and resilient. We empower communities through technical assistance, advocacy, and thought leadership to realize our vision of livable places, healthy people, and shared prosperity. www.smartgrowthamerica.org

House T&I Committee Hearing: “Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America”

Link to hearing page: here.

On February 1st the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee held its first hearing of the new Congress to host a broad discussion on the need to invest in infrastructure.

The hearing panelists were:

  • Fred Smith, Chairman, President, and CEO of the FedEx Corporation
  • David MacLennan, Chairman and CEO of Cargill, Inc.
  • Ludwig Willisch, President and CEO of BMW of North America
  • Mary Andringa, Chair of the Board of the Vermeer Corporation
  • Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO

Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) called the hearing to discuss the need for investment in infrastructure. Rep. Shuster began the hearing by noting two new additions to the committee room: quotations from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and from the U.S. Constitution which emphasize infrastructure development as an important function of the federal government.

In contrast to Rep. Shuster’s general endorsement of infrastructure spending, Ranking Member Peter DeFazio (D-OR) came out with several specific financing proposals, including increasing and indexing fuel taxes, reassigning fees collected at ports to fund harbor maintenance, and raising the cap on passenger facility fees used to finance airport improvements.

The panelists all strongly supported, in principle, additional investment in this area and the business leaders each spoke of how predictable travel on highways, waterways and through ports and airports was critical to their businesses.

Comments from the panel

FedEx Chairman Fred Smith noted, and frequently repeated through the hearing, that his company and nearly all others in the transportation sector support an increase in user fees to support additional spending on infrastructure. He specifically endorsed an increase in motor fuel taxes as well as new congestion charges assessed through EZ-pass-type electronic tolling. Smith repeatedly referred to a list of twenty Interstate highway projects that were designed and ready to build if funding were available and said these projects would reduce congestion and help his business.

Cargill CEO David MacLennan urged the committee to focus not just on the new technology and “shiny objects,” but to continue to maintain existing infrastructure, noting how important highways, freight rail and, especially, inland waterways are to the agriculture industry.

BMW America CEO Ludwig Willisch noted the intermodal global supply chains that the company’s U.S. manufacturing depends on and also that well-maintained infrastructure would help automated vehicle development.

Vermeer Chair Mary Andringa thanked the committee for new projects funded by the FASTLANE grant program.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka urged the committee to include existing worker protections and seek the lowest cost of capital in any transportation financing arrangement, including public-private partnerships. He also noted that private financing would be unlikely to cover needs in rural areas. He argued a big investment – on the order of $1 trillion – would be needed to repair the existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure to replace that which is becoming technologically obsolete.

Summary of questions and comments from members

In his opening remarks, Rep. DeFazio stated that he hoped Congress would bring back some earmarking for critical projects, stating that representatives best know the needs and priorities of their districts. Rep. DeFazio separately noted a provision he worked to include in the FAST Act that would allow new funding made available to flow out directly though existing formula programs. Further, Rep. DeFazio encouraged the committee to focus on repair of existing infrastructure, noting that President Trump has made the same appeal to “fix-it-first.”

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) noted that spending on infrastructure is the best economic stimulus and said of new revenue, “The American people ok paying it as long as they know every penny is used to the best that it could.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) lamented that we are now letting fall into disrepair what earlier generations had the courage to build and asked about possible alternative funding sources to replace or supplement the fuel tax.

Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) asked if BMW would consider using the automated vehicle testing facility in Ohio.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) expressed concerns that increasing automation in manufacturing logistics, and construction sectors would displace workers and said that while many expect new infrastructure spending would create many new jobs, that may not be the case. FedEx’s Smith noted support for a new law in Tennessee to provide worker training and skills development.

Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) asked if the federal government should get involved directly in toll roads or congestion pricing and if the committee should be considering truck-only tollways. FedEx’s Smith responded that such lanes would be a possibility but are not necessary.

Rep. Rick Larsen (WA) asked about the potential of NextGen air traffic control and asked Richard Trumka how labor is supporting workforce development in the transportation industry.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) addressed Ranking Member DeFazio’s proposals, saying that he supported a user fee funding source for transportation, but thought it would be difficult to raise such fees as long as funds were, in his words, “leaking out” to bike paths and beautification projects.

Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) noted the need to invest in transit and the importance of moving people as well as freight. He noted that the committee had already considered P3 financing and found that only approximately 10% of projects could be appropriate for such financing.

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) asked whether BMW would make the same decision as it had 20 years ago to move to South Carolina given current infrastructure. BMW’s Willisch said it would and noted that the company had just invested another $1 billion in their operations there

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) asked about electrifying vehicle fleets, specifically at FedEx.

Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) expressed surprised agreement with AFL-CIO’s Trumka on the importance in investing in new, transformative technologies.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) expressed frustration that the committee continued to discuss the importance of infrastructure investment but that the majority had not offered a concrete plan for funding infrastructure. She asked Trumka is repatriation of profits or P3s would be a solution; he responded that they would not.

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) noted that families are already paying for infrastructure through fuel taxes and the cost of products delivered. He asked what the committee could do to help the panelists’ companies without new funding. Only Cargill’s MacLennan answered, noting existing funding already available.

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) stated that her priority was creating jobs and asked what investments would best support poverty reduction.

Rep. Jason Lewis (R-MN) noted that residents in his suburban district are reliant on cars. He asked whether congestion pricing could peak congestion and noted that opponents say there is no way to build out of congestion. FedEx’s Smith said congestion pricing would work, as slow-downs are created at the margin so moving a few trips would have an effect. However he also argued that building new highways and adding capacity was the only way to eliminate congestion.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) hoped for a user fee for transportation to be exempted from the no taxes pledge.

Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), who previously served in the Pennsylvania State Senate, noted how the industry-led public education effort built the support necessary to pass new transportation funding at the state level in 2013 [see more on that effort here]. He asked panelists what they are doing to build that public support now at the federal level.

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) announced he would introduce legislation to close loopholes in the Buy America provisions and require that Buy America waivers be published in the Federal Register. He also asked the panelists what the federal government could do to support the development of automated vehicles.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) asked panelists how private companies or P3s could better construct infrastructure. He offered an example from his district where businesses are interested in financing an interchange to access their sites. He challenged Trumka on Davis-Bacon requirements.

Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) spoke of the importance of workforce development and asked about workforce training at a time of changing technology.

Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) asked for the panelists’ business advice on how to better prioritize projects, noting examples of four-lane highways with very few vehicles on them. He also asked whether water transport of freight could reduce highway congestion.

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-NJ) noted that investments in the Port of Newark, Newark Airport, and the Gateway Tunnel were important.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) asked whether panelists would support dedicating royalties collected on from mineral resources to fund transportation.

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) spoke of the importance of locks on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

The details on the Davis-Titus amendment to the House transportation bill to increase the funding going to local communities

Two Representatives championing the cause of giving local communities more control over federal transportation dollars will introduce a modified plan in the House to steer more funding directly to local communities — a plan they hope to have incorporated into the House transportation authorization bill being marked up in committee this Thursday (10/22). 

Davis Titus Amendment promoLate last week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released their proposal for a six-year transportation reauthorization.

Like the Senate’s version from this summer, the committee authorizes only three years of funding in a bill that contains six years of policy requirements. But unlike the Senate bill that cobbled together three years of funding from more than ten years of future offsets, the House continues to punt on the funding question and offers no actual solutions for keeping the nation’s transportation fund solvent for the life of the bill. With the House Ways and Means Committee also not providing any indication as to where funding will come from to pay for this bill, it’s like weighing a decision to buy a new house without knowing any of the loan terms up front on a 30-year mortgage.

While the policy in the bill is also far from the kind of transformational, reform-minded bill that we have been pressing for, there’s a very tangible improvement that will be proposed by a bipartisan group of representatives, and it’s one worth fighting for to include in the bill this week before it moves to the floor.

The amendment from Representatives Rodney Davis (R-IL) and Dina Titus (D-NV) would do three things:

  1. Provide more flexible funds overall. The amendment increases the amount of funding in the federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) overall, which are the most flexible transportation dollars that can be invested in almost any type of local project, whether a project to improve a road, increase the reach of transit, or make a street safer for biking and walking.
  2. Send more money directly to local communities. The amendment increases the share of flexible STP funding that goes directly to local governments.
  3. Help smaller communities too. It also ensures that the smaller regions with less than 200,000 people that don’t directly control STP funding have more certainty over how the funds reserved for their areas will be spent. This is accomplished by requiring the state to only fund the projects that local communities actively apply for. A new reporting process would make clear to the public which projects applied for funding and how the state prioritized and selected them.

We need to drive up support for this plan now as the House considers their bill in committee this Thursday. Send a message today to your Representatives and urge them to support the Davis-Titus amendment.

SEND A MESSAGE

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

Large metro areas (over 200,000 people) directly receive a share of flexible federal dollars through a process known as suballocation. The Davis-Titus amendment would increase the share of these flexible dollars that they control from 50 percent up to 67 percent of the program’s total funding

But today, small metro areas (under 200,000 people) are at the mercy of their state department of transportation’s opaque decision-making process for spending in their area. In these smaller areas, those “suballocated” funds go directly to the state instead, which has total control over deciding how these funds will be spent. The only basic requirement is that the state must spend a predetermined share of those funds based on population within the state’s smaller metro areas, but the local community gets little say on how those dollars are allocated.

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

While there’s some variety from state to state in how this process plays out — some states are more respectful of local communities’ wishes than others — it means that a local community could see their priorities passed over completely by their state department of transportation. A local community could have a pressing need like improving an important downtown main street or intersection safety improvements that yield stronger outcomes and benefits per dollar spent, and the state could instead decide to add a lane on the state highway on the edge of town instead. As long as the state spends the appropriate amount of money within that area, that’s considered a proper use of the money intended for use in that community.

What would the Davis-Titus amendment change?

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

Last but not least, an important change is made to ensure that smaller metro areas aren’t left behind. Instead of being put solely at the state’s discretion, under this proposal, states would only be permitted to fund the projects that local communities enter into a transparent application process to receive funding. So if a local community hasn’t applied for funding for a certain project, the state wouldn’t be able to fund it with suballocated STP dollars and satisfy the requirement that they spend a certain share in these smaller areas.

In addition, this new application process has some other requirements to improve transparency that would make it clear to the public which projects applied for funding and how the state prioritized and selected them, allowing local leaders and citizens a mechanism to hold their state accountable.

Why support the Davis-Titus amendment?

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

What does this mean for the Innovation in Surface Transportation Act

The Innovation in Surface Transportation Act has been one of our biggest priorities for more than a year now and has also been championed in the House by Representatives Davis and Titus. That bill would put a small share of each state’s federal transportation dollars into a competitive grant program, with local communities represented in the selected process, so that towns and cities of all sizes could compete directly on the merits for transportation funds.

This is a significant and transformative proposal, but as we’ve worked hard with countless local partners, mayors, elected leaders, business groups and trade associations here in Washington to build consensus, the modified Davis-Titus proposal is the one with the best chance of being incorporated into the House’s bill this week.

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

So in the House, in the short-term, we’ll be focusing our efforts on the modified Davis-Titus amendment because it represents the best chance to accomplish many of the core goals for Innovation in Surface Transportation Act: increase local access and control over federal transportation funding and improve the transparency for how those funds are spent.  This new proposal is a smart compromise that should be incorporated into the multi-year transportation bill being considered in House committee on Thursday, October 22nd, and one that will ensure that smart, locally-driven, homegrown transportation investments get the funding they need.

Send a message to your Representatives and urge them to support the Davis-Titus amendment. It only takes a moment, and vocal support for this plan will be crucial to getting it incorporated into the full bill.

Updated House passenger rail bill is identical to last year’s promising compromise bill

It’s back! After the encouraging release of a compromise bill to govern the nation’s passenger rail policy in the last Congress, a nearly identical bill was introduced and passed out of committee this month and could be debated on the House floor as early as next week.

Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio on the House T&I Committee, and Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano on the rail subcommittee, the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act was introduced and advanced through the full House committee.

This new version is identical to the bill from the last Congress; a compromise bill that recognizes the benefits of a truly national passenger rail system and seeks to improve it rather dwell on drawbacks.

Most importantly, it preserves a national system of state-supported and long-distance routes and authorizes funding for the system that is consistent with the recent appropriations for Amtrak. While passenger rail certainly needs far more investment than it’s getting to truly prosper and meet the burgeoning demand, we were encouraged to see representatives who once had a hard time finding common ground agreeing on some important fundamentals.

We’re hopeful that this important issue will be debated on the House floor in the coming weeks.

Because this bill is basically identical to last year’s version, our summary of that bill from September 2014 can be found below.

Let’s get one issue out of the way up front. The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 (PRRIA) does indeed lower the authorized amount of funding for Amtrak by 40 percent from in the level last adopted in 2008, capping it between $1.4B and $1.5B for each of the next four years. Although that looks like a step backward, in reality Congress never appropriated the full amount of authorized funds. Because there was no dedicated revenue source passenger rail funding was subjected to a contentious debate over general fund spending each year. The new bill yields to that reality and sets funding at the levels of the last several years.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that we’ve had budget proposals in the House over the last two years that appropriated between $1.0 or $1.1 billion for Amtrak — $400-500 million less than this reauthorization proposal from the same chamber.

There are some other interesting and positive changes worth highlighting.

The bill authorizes new competitive grant programs for the Northeast Corridor and for the national network. These programs are authorized at $150 million each for the next four years. The NEC program requires that states put up their own money equal to the federal grant, and the projects that can be funded must be on a priority project list to be developed by the Northeast Corridor Commission.

The bill will take the important first steps toward restoring rail service to the Gulf Coast, a region that has been disconnected from the national network since Hurricane Katrina forced the suspension of rail service along the coast. It’s an encouraging sign that the committee recognizes the value not only of preserving our current rail network, but expanding it to serve additional regions.

Some of the overall structure for funding also changes under this bill. Congress currently funds Amtrak under two programs: operating, and capital/debt service. This year, Congress funded these two programs at $1.39 billion. The bill restructures these programs into a Northeast Corridor Improvement Fund and a National Network Account at a total of $1.412 billion. The NEC account may be used only for that corridor and permits Amtrak to reinvest operational revenue there. The idea of privatizing the Northeast Corridor is off the table, at least for now.

The bill includes several requirements intended to create greater transparency in Amtrak’s financial reporting, increasing accountability and oversight over budgets and financial decisions. Calls by some members of Congress for increased competition in passenger rail were answered with a new pilot program (limited to two routes) that will allow rail carriers that own track used by Amtrak to submit a competitive bid along with Amtrak to provide the same level of passenger service there. The winning bidder would receive the right to provide passenger service for 5 years, with subsidies that would decline over time.

This bill does not contain everything that Transportation for America has called for, however.

For example, there’s still no dedicated funding source identified, which means that Amtrak will still have to fight for funding every year in the annual appropriations process. And some of the provisions related to Amtrak’s finances and operations could lead to changes in service down the road, such as the requirement that Amtrak contract with an independent entity to develop a new methodology for determining which routes to serve.

Still, in a Congress marked by partisan gridlock, we’re hopeful that this encouraging compromise in the House can lay the groundwork for creating a dedicated funding source for rail service that will put it on the same footing as other transportation modes.

SOTU followup: Does transportation offer a glimmer of bipartisan hope?

As we noted in our statement after the State of the Union address Tuesday night, it was good to hear the President again cite the need to steer new revenue toward “rebuilding our roads, upgrading our ports, unclogging our commutes”. He didn’t say much beyond that, of course, but given other developments in the background, we have reason to be somewhat encouraged.

140125121707-obama-sotu-2013-story-top

Though his transportation remarks were limited, what he did propose was a bit more concrete than past references to diverting billions saved from winding down various wars. This time, he called for making changes to corporate taxes – moves with at least some support in both parties – that could yield a temporary infusion for infrastructure investment.

It would be a welcome near-term boost, but as his transportation secretary has repeatedly pointed out, we need a long-term fix for the ongoing shortfall in our beleaguered transportation trust fund. The U.S. DOT will run out of money to reimburse states before the end of the fiscal year, with deep cuts likely in following years. Simply put, rising construction costs and falling gas tax revenues from an increasingly efficient vehicle fleet have us on course for a “transportation fiscal cliff”.

As the President surely knows, this bodes ill for much of the strategy he outlined for easing the burden for work-a-day Americans. It won’t do much good, for example, to train a low-wage worker for a job in the suburbs if he or she can’t get to it. Efforts to revive manufacturing will falter if producers can’t move their goods through bottlenecks on overburdened and deteriorating urban highways.

As the expiration of MAP-21 nears this fall, we are hoping the Administration will put forward a transportation bill that lines up with Obama’s economic strategy. But when it comes to raising the revenue to boost the trust fund to levels sufficient to repair and modernize our infrastructure, the President cannot go it alone.

The good news is he may not have to.  In recent days, the chairs of two key infrastructure committees, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – representing both chambers and both parties – have sounded the call to save our transportation fund from insolvency and make smart investments for America’s future.

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

“This problem must be addressed in this Congress,” said Senator Boxer, who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. “A strong transportation system is vital to ensuring our nation’s economic competitiveness, and this requires maintaining federal investments in our infrastructure.”

Rep. Shuster, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, also has been bold and articulate on the need for a “strong federal role” in creating the infrastructure to sustain our economy and quality of life, and the need for local leaders to speak up for it. In opening a hearing this month on “Building the Foundation for Surface Transportation Reauthorization”, he said: “We can’t afford to be stuck in the past or we’ll be left behind. We should encourage our federal partners to think outside the box on how to address our transportation challenges [and] promote innovation.”

We couldn’t agree more, and we can’t imagine that his Democratic counterparts would disagree. We recognize that finding agreement on the revenue source will be a steep climb. We have suggested several possible sources. Perhaps tax reform offers another vehicle to find new revenue for transportation needs.

Meanwhile, “We need your help in educating members of Congress,” Chairman Shuster told the U.S. Conference of Mayors this month. Those members need to hear from elected, business and civic leaders from around the country that there is support – and a demand – for congressional action to provide the infrastructure funding our economy relies on. That’s our mission at T4America: to rally those voices across the country and bring them to their members of Congress. If you can help – either by speaking yourself or by reaching out to a community leader – please let us know!

Some details on Chairman Oberstar’s transportation proposal

Read T4 America’s official statement on the release of the summary outline by Chairman James Oberstar.

We’ll have a number of posts today and tomorrow breaking down some of the notable spending levels and reforms proposed in Chairman Oberstar’s outline of the transportation bill. In the meantime, we thought we’d give you a few details that we’ve looked over while scanning the outline of the bill this morning. Note that today’s 11 a.m. press conference — which will included a longer version of the proposal — has been delayed until 2 p.m. due to “House votes.”

According to Oberstar’s summary, the upcoming bill will restructure and transform federal transportation policy away from multiple “prescriptive programs” into a “performance-based framework” “designed to achieve specific national objectives.”

The outline calls for terminating and consolidating more than 75 of the 108 total programs into a few broad large program areas, but it maintains current funding silos between separate modes. Here’s a quick breakdown. (Remember that these numbers are not final, and could be very different when the bill is released next week.)

  • Highways: $337.4 billion (75%) of $450 billion
  • Transit: $98.8 billion (22.2%) of $450 billion
  • Safety Programs: $12.6 billion (2.8%) of $450 billion

Its important to note that the $98.8 billion in proposed transit funds is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how much money public transportation would receive in total. Oberstar’s outline includes $50 billion for a new “Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program,” which will “provide significant funding to help the largest metropolitan regions address congestion,” and a refocused “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” (CMAQ). While money for both of these programs are included in the highway allocation, it would be possible under the proposal to spend these funds on public transportation projects to achieve the stated goals of CMAQ and the Metropolitan Mobility programs.

Chairman Oberstar’s outline also calls for $50 billion to develop high-speed rail — in addition to the money in the stimulus package and yearly appropriations bill for this year — an area of transportation that has never received funding in previous transportation legislation.

Oberstar told Congressional Quarterly this morning that he is still planning on releasing full bill text and marking up the bill in his Highways and Transit Subcommittee next week.

Check back later today for more details and analysis.