After the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and USDOT issued a report to Congress this week about Complete Streets, Beth Osborne, Vice President of Transportation at Smart Growth America—the home of the National Complete Streets Coalition—issued this statement:
“This simple but critical concept of Complete Streets—designing our streets so that everyone can use them safely—was created within our National Complete Streets Coalition almost 20 years ago. After years of working tirelessly to encourage towns, cities, counties, states and the federal government to adopt this approach, we are deeply encouraged to see the concept enshrined and institutionalized within official USDOT documents, including this report. FHWA has done an excellent job in clearly laying out and describing the actions that are needed throughout the entire federal transportation program to truly build safe streets and roads for all people, including getting better safety data, assessing safety in project development, and making safety the primary goal and Complete Streets the default design.
“The title of this report is also telling. There are certainly ‘Opportunities and Challenges’ when it comes to making our streets safer and more convenient. Now we need to turn those challenges into opportunities and opportunities into reality. Every day the status quo approach stands and transportation agencies are allowed to design, build, or maintain their streets only for cars is a day where we allow the historic levels of death on those roadways to continue. This report gives us a path forward—one that needs to be acted on in the immediate future.
“The National Complete Streets Coalition will continue our hands-on work with states and localities to advance Complete Streets policies and upend our country’s outdated paradigm for street design that has produced a historic increase in traffic injuries and fatalities. We look forward to working closely with FHWA to turn their excellent recommendations into action.”
The National Complete Streets Coalition and Transportation for America are programs of Smart Growth America.
Senator Capito uses visual aids to criticize the FHWA memo. Still from the hearing.
A Senate committee called Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to testify about implementing the new infrastructure law, but much of the day was spent criticizing or defending FHWA’s nonbinding memo encouraging states to prioritize state of good repair, safety, and climate mitigation—displaying a deep confusion in some members of Congress about the limits of USDOT’s authority.
On the heels of the president’s State of the Union address the night before, the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) convened a hearing on March 2, 2022 to talk about the infrastructure law.
Senator Carper (D-DE) opened with a discussion of the pivotal work the Committee took in formulating and passing the infrastructure law last year, and continued to underscore the need to take action on climate change (with Senator Carper noting 28 percent of emissions coming from transportation) as well as safety (after an alarming increase in fatalities, especially for vulnerable road users).
Over the course of the hearing, various senators chimed in to check on the implementation status of various programs or projects, whether the electrification of the transportation system versus alternative fuel options, truck parking, reconnecting communities, Carbon Reduction and PROTECT formula programs, transportation accessibility, Buy America, or port infrastructure. But a considerable amount of discussion from a number of senators—most notably by ranking member Senator Capito (R-WV)—focused on the nonbinding FHWA memo released on December 16 (which T4America supported as a strong statement about how states should absolutely choose to spend this historic influx of cash).
In her opening remarks, Senator Capito deemed the FHWA memo a threat to the policy framework of the infrastructure law that the committee worked so hard to put together, advancing a partisan Biden administration agenda and creating a system of winners and losers depending on the project. Using large visual aids, Senator Capito accused FHWA of plagiarizing language in the memo about fix-it-first over capacity expansion from the House’s INVEST Act. The crux of Capito’s opposition to the memo is the suggestion of a (non-existent) mandate (and a one-size-fits-all context) in the fix-it-first language over capacity expansion. In later commentary, Senator Cramer (R-ND) went further by noting that the memo was threatening the concept of federalism and the powers that states have.
As Jeff Davis at Eno noted on Twitter, this is completely false:
The ability of @USDOT to establish criterion for project approval beyond what is written in law is arguably limited by section 145 of title 23, the wording of which has not been amended since it was enacted in 1973: pic.twitter.com/VGXdPHPcUl
As Secretary Buttigieg pointed out during the hearing, the memo serves as a values document (not a mandate or part of the infrastructure law), incorporating what USDOT is hearing from states and previous transportation reauthorizations. He also noted it would be a disservice to not remind the states of their flexibility to pursue goals like repair, safety, climate change, and equity.
Secretary Buttigieg at the EPW hearing
Senator Carper jumped into the conversation at this point to provide a core history lesson regarding state of good repair from (1) Congressional values in the federal transportation program that are codified into law and (2) values shared by a previous Republican administration, underscoring how the FHWA memo is entirely consistent with pre-established values. Senator Cardin (D-MD) also added that these values expressed in the FHWA memo are key priorities that are also reflected in the infrastructure law and shouldn’t be surprising.
Senator Cardin at the EPW hearing
Overall, the day was full of much fury, signifying very little.
Republicans on the committee fiercely claimed that this unenforceable, nonbinding memo was in fact enforceable. They claimed that encouraging states to improve the state of repair, improve safety, and reduce the negative impacts of the transportation system goes against Congressional intent, that it will block projects like highway expansions, and that it lays out how competitive grant applications will be reviewed.
Let us be clear: an unenforceable memo cannot stop anything or make any state choose to spend their money more responsibly. We agree that the language of the law failed to move the needle enough on topics like safety, repair, climate, etc. But we’re frankly shocked to hear the memo’s critics admit their preference for the broken status quo so boldly. This administration will and should evaluate projects for competitive, discretionary funding that they control using their priorities, which is how competitive grant programs have always been implemented by all administrations.
Those who spent the day vociferously criticizing this memo are either ignorant to the law and how the program works, or they are just boldly stating their lack of interest in the outcomes they promised the American people when they passed the IIJA. Both are really bad news. It’s disconcerting that the bulk of this hearing was spent fighting about a priority statement—an utter waste of time. The lesson we hope USDOT gets from this is to be bold and not waste time with little plans. This modest action they took got all the blow back of a truly controversial move while in fact accomplishing nothing. As we move forward on the implementation of the IIJA, we hope USDOT and the EPW Committee reflects on the words of the architect and planner Daniel Burnham:
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood and probably will not themselves be realized. Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever growing insistency.
On the release of the new Roadway Safety Strategy by the U.S. Department of Transportation, T4America directorBeth Osborne issued this statement:
“We’re very happy to see the administration specifically call out the importance of road design on speeds and driver behavior as a core area of focus, and acknowledge that risky behavior can be addressed through better roadway design. We’ve been fighting for years to get the media, the public, and especially transportation agencies to focus on the neglected role of street design in these deaths, and we’re encouraged to see an entire section on safer roadway designs and an entire section on safe speeds, including a call for updated guidance on setting safe speeds and the 85th percentile rule.
“We’re delighted that USDOT will consider revising the guidance for state safety targets, requiring them to demonstrate measurable progress instead of permitting them to just accept more deaths as an unavoidable fact of our transportation system. It’s not, and we can’t allow states and metro areas spending our tax dollars to keep throwing up their hands when it comes to reducing fatalities.
“Why is it so important that USDOT use their administrative powers to improve safety? Because in the infrastructure bill, Congress declined to make safety a core priority of and requirement for the huge formula programs used to build or repair roads, instead opting for a strategy that creates new, small safety programs that can be overwhelmed by the hundreds of billions spent on moving cars as fast as possible in almost all contexts. Unfortunately, this plan focuses on using the small safety and bike/ped programs to fund improvements in safety. USDOT needs to make safety the fundamental consideration of the hundreds of billions that states get in programs such as the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program and the National Highway Performance Program. If safety for our most vulnerable users is the top priority then it will be a priority of all the programs, not just niche programs.
“There are a couple areas of concern. The safety plan calls for improvements to the design guidelines used by all traffic engineers (the MUTCD) but states that bigger changes will come in the next edition—which could take years to see and may be managed by an administration that doesn’t share the same priorities. That is a very risky move that could put people at risk. Also while proposing to update the program that assesses the safety of new cars to include the safety of people inside and outside a car, they’ve failed to specify the impact of the growing size of the front ends of vehicles on the increasing deaths of people outside of them. Drivers should be able to see the road in front of them for the vehicle to be road worthy.
“Overall, we think this is a good strategy pointed in all the right directions, but we’re eager to get more specifics about what they plan to do in concrete terms. With a year of this administration already spent, we don’t need new plans and strategies that fail to bring about rapid change. We urge them to get started on implementation as quickly as possible and are eager to help.”
While the bulk of the $643 billion for surface transportation in the infrastructure bill goes out to state DOTs, more than $200 billion stays with USDOT to be awarded via competitive grants to states, metro areas, and tribal governments—through dozens of newly created, updated, and existing competitive grant programs.
In this post, we want to provide a brief high-level overview of how much competitive funding there is, why it matters that USDOT has some control over which projects get funding, and a few notable programs to pay attention to for various reasons—good and bad alike.
This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.
First, what are competitive grant programs, and why does it matter that USDOT has some control over them?
Unlike the much larger formula programs that dole out a fixed amount of money to states or metro areas based on factors like population and miles driven, projects are selected for funding by USDOT in competitive grant programs based on how they will perform in priority areas, and USDOT often has wide discretion for establishing those criteria. As one example, President Trump’s USDOT dramatically shifted the BUILD (formerly TIGER) program from more innovative, multimodal projects to one focused mostly on building and expanding roads. (This program still exists and is now called RAISE.)
For the Biden administration to fulfill their ambitious pledges to improve state of repair and safety, eliminate inequities, and reduce emissions from transportation that are fueling climate change, they will have to use every bit of discretion at their disposal within these competitive programs to ensure the projects they fund contribute to those priority goals.
A high level look at overall funding for the deal’s competitive grant programs
The infrastructure law contains funding for multiple competitive grant programs. Some are new to this bill, addressing emerging and poignant issues in transportation. Within these USDOT-administered programs, just north of $103 billion is set aside for the Federal Highway Administration, $30 billion is for the Federal Transit Administration, $59 billion is for the Federal Railroad Administration, and $6 billion is for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This funding breakdown is notable because each modal administration operates within parallel but often different policy frameworks, which influences how the grant programs get administered.
To help you best utilize them, T4America has organized a high-level list of the various competitive grant programs by topic area. Two caveats: These many programs overlap in purpose, and many are created to move the needle in multiple areas. I.e., TIGER was a multimodal program, a freight program, a safety program, a bike/ped program—all squished into one. Also, this list is not exhaustive by any stretch, though we are producing a complete list like that for our T4America members to equip them to take advantage of the funding that best meets the challenges and context of their communities.
The lion’s share goes to multimodal grant programs
Approximately $116 billion of the $200 billion allocated to competitive grant programs is aimed towards planning for, advancing, building, and implementing multimodal connections in our communities. This broad category is typically highly competitive, considering that it typically funds notable but neglected local or regional priorities that elected officials love to cut the ribbons on. More specifically, this category includes:
$31.25 billion towards larger national, state, and local project assistance programs
RAISE grants: $30 billion over five years for a competitive grant process towards roads, rail, transit, and port projects that help achieve national, state, and/or regional objectives. (For comparison’s sake the old TIGER/BUILD program it replaced invested only $4 billion since 2009.) As with the program it replaces, the criteria USDOT writes and how they administer the selection process will have an enormous impact on whether or not these projects advance the administration’s goals.
TIFIA: $1.25 billion over five years to help finance large transportation projects with direct loans, loan guarantees, and credit risk assistance. It’s first-come, first-serve, though some make a compelling case we’d get far better projects if it was discretionary.
$27.5 billion in transit grants
Capital Investment Grants: $23 billion over five years for expanding or building new transit,
Bus and bus facilities grants: $2 billion over five years to procure, repair, and/or enhance buses as well as construct, enhance, and/or bring to a state of repair bus-related facilities, and
Ferry grants: $2.5 billion over five years, of which $0.5 billion is for the procurement, repair, and/or enhancement of ferries to low to no emissions, and $2 billion is for rural essential ferry services.
$54 billion for rail-focused programs
Consolidated Railroad Infrastructure Safety Improvement (CRISI) ($10 billion over 5 years), which focuses to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of intercity passenger and freight rail,
The new Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail ($43.5 billion) which allows the expansion of or construction on new intercity passenger rail routes in addition to capital projects that address state-of-good repair, and
Railroad Improvement Financing (RRIF) program ($600 million) which helps to finance railroad projects with direct loans, loan guarantees, and credit risk assistance.
However, there are a few programs in this broad category that are new but unfunded and therefore subject to annual appropriations. That includes the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program, authorizing $1 billion towards active transportation networks in communities, as well as the Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation grant program, authorizing $1 billion towards piloting innovative technologies that improves safety and system operation efficiency.
Repair
Approximately $50 billion worth of competitive programs are aimed towards prioritizing the state of repair in our communities. The bulk of that (~$43 billion) is directed towards the new Bridge Investment Program, which is a program to repair, rehabilitate, replace or protect bridges that are in disrepair. (Not to be confused with funding for bridge repair flowing through a new formula program announced just this week.) There is also just shy of $2.5 billion directed towards transit state of good repair grants that targets heavy rail transit and a station retrofits program for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additionally, $250 million is directed towards rail Restoration and Enhancement grants for passenger rail infrastructure repair.
While it’s laudable for the infrastructure law to have discretionary grant programs dedicated to various aspects of the state of transportation repair, the fact that repair priorities are not central to the much larger, massive state-controlled formula programs (other than a strong encouragement memo from FHWA) leaves much to be desired.
Safety
Approximately $12 billion of the competitive grant programs are predominantly aimed towards prioritizing safety. Of that money, $6 billion is focused on the new Safe Streets and Roads for All grant program. That notable new program focuses on improving street safety and reorienting it towards people focus and is exclusively intended for non-state government entities (think counties, cities, towns, tribal communities, regional organizations like MPOs). Additionally, $5 billion in grant funding is focused on eliminating rail crossings.
However, there’s also a clear, stated emphasis on improving safety woven through the majority of many competitive grant programs—including big ticket programs like RAISE—so the administration has a real opportunity to make safety a tangible priority in how they stand up the projects and run the selection processes.
Climate and environmental mitigation
Approximately $15 billion of the competitive grant programs are aimed towards making an impact on climate change and the environment, thought the biggest single pot under this umbrella is for electrifying the transportation system (i.e, electric cars and trucks), which is a high priority for Biden’s USDOT, which is already seeking implementation guidance. Within this category, there is:
$7.5 billion aimed towards electrification of our transportation system (focused extensively but not exclusively on cars and roads).
Complementary to a related $7.3 billion formula grant program, the new $1.4 billion PROTECT competitive grant program has tiered layers of funding opportunities focused on planning, capacity building, and targeted climate mitigation and/or resiliency infrastructure funding.
$5 billion is set aside for culvert restoration, removal, or replacement, so as to reduce the impact on wetland environments and fishery.
$400 million in grants are aimed to curb freight emissions at ports.
$500 million authorized (but unfunded) for Healthy Streets, which looks at streetscape treatments to reduce the urban heat island effect in communities.
Equity
One of the most exciting additions in the infrastructure bill is the $1 billion for the new Reconnecting Communities program focused on tearing down or bridging transportation infrastructure that divides communities and promoting community connections that are people- versus vehicle-focused. The program is notable in working to redress the socioeconomic damage to marginalized communities, though the funding in the infrastructure law is only seed money towards a significant need in the US. Additionally, the Healthy Streets program, noted above, would bring numerous environmental benefits, and could be deployed to target the urban heat island effects that disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
Rural needs
While there is $3.25 billion set aside for rural surface transportation grants, T4America is disappointed that $1.5 billion of that is aimed at just building more highways in Appalachia, as if highways were the sole cure to all rural transportation needs. Rural America desperately deserves a more complete vision for transportation. (We have some ideas.)
Positioning for competitive grant application success
With about five dozen competitive, surface transportation grant programs to administer, USDOT faces a heavy lift to get these programs off the ground, on top of administering the legacy programs that already existed. However, that doesn’t mean communities can’t start to position themselves for success. There’s opportunity to think about not only what projects to pursue, but also contemplate identifying and leveraging supplemental funding sources.
Although state DOTs have always been free to prioritize repair, safety, or improving access for everyone across the entire system, most have traditionally chosen to use that flexibility to build new highways instead. With state DOT coffers soon to be loaded with billions from the new infrastructure bill, USDOT is urging states via a new memo to focus on their repair needs, take an expansive view of what they can invest in, and invest in reducing emissions and improving safety.
This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.
Last week USDOT finally released the long awaited state formula funding apportionment tables, which document how the first year of the infrastructure law’s formula funding will be divided up to the states. When it comes to the FHWA and FTA’s role in the oversight and messaging on formula funding to the states, the experience has not been consistent, which this memo looks to tackle.
FHWA sends a clear and consistent guiding message
With the funding amounts published, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) followed up the next day with a notable and perhaps unprecedented memo of administrative guidance from Deputy Administrator Stephanie Pollock directed to FHWA headquarters administrators, division administrators, and their teams. This memo sent a clear message on where USDOT wants to emphasize its technical assistance and oversight of federal transportation program funds.
Here are four points the Deputy Administrator made that we want to highlight:
1) Prioritizing repair and rehabilitation first
Since Congress chose not to prioritize repair by discarding the House’s INVEST Act which would have instituted hard and fast requirements, USDOT and the Biden administration want to emphasize the critical need for improving the state of repair of the transportation infrastructure. The guidance reminds the role states must play in maintaining a state of repair of their existing infrastructure (23 USC 116) if they plan to participate in the federal transportation program. Lastly, in advancing maintenance, FHWA encourages incorporation of safety and multimodal accessibility into the repair scope of the infrastructure project.
2) Prioritizing investment on all federal-aid transportation infrastructure
The memorandum makes note that the formula funding being directed to states is not for exclusive use of state DOT-owned and managed infrastructure and that they should consider all the needs in their state—not just the big ticket state-owned highways where many typically focus their funds. The memo notes that the 50,000 miles of state DOT-owned roads and bridges are in much better condition than the one million miles of other roads not owned by the state but eligible for that funding, 85 percent of all miles driven takes place on these other roads/bridges, and formula programs also have money dedicated to these “off-system” roads and bridges.
3) Simplifying project review
The memorandum guides FHWA to help fast track and simplify the review of projects that prioritize repair, improve safety, or invest in multimodal improvements. Streetsblog summed up this provision well last week:
Among the most potentially transformative new guidelines is a federal advisory that multimodal projects, like bike lanes, sidewalks and BRT lanes, should no longer be subjected to onerous environmental review — and that highway expansions and other high-polluting projects for which the National Environmental Protection Act was created should be scrutinized much more heavily than they are now. Opponents of sustainable transportation across the country have long abused the environmental review process to stall carbon-cutting projects, while letting autocentric efforts sail through.
4) Emphasizing operational efficiency over expansion
The memo says that FHWA will do what they can with their technical assistance and oversight to emphasize operational efficiencies to move more people and goods within existing infrastructure over capacity expansion (i.e, new highways). The memorandum acknowledges that FHWA is in no position to prohibit states from expanding system capacity, but that FHWA will explore all policy mechanisms at their disposal to not only strongly encourage and influence, but require an emphasis on repair and alternative enhancements to roadway capacity expansion. Of special note as well, FHWA underscored the flexibility that state DOTs have and should exercise in supporting public transportation projects.
–
Though this policy memorandum does not have any enforceable mechanisms in what state DOTs can and will do with their formula highway funding, it makes a major statement about where the administration’s priorities lie, gives ammunition to the advocates trying to hold them accountable, and can help nudge and encourage states that are in the midst of attempting to change how they prioritize their spending.
The DOT’s gentle, “have you thought about this?” approach to climate-friendly and safe road infrastructure may feel toothless. But states that have experimented with similar approaches say it’s helpful. In Colorado, Governor Jared Polis has urged the state DOT to emphasize people-friendly—rather than builder-friendly—infrastructure projects. More than half of the state’s transportation money goes toward “state of good repair” projects, like filling potholes, fixing bridges and viaducts, and adding shoulders to rural roads for safety, says Shoshana Lew, executive director of Colorado’s DOT. Prioritizing safety and climate effects “forces the conversation to be more rounded,” says Lew. “It makes you think really hard about whether the project is worth it, and what the implications will be.” As a result of Colorado’s approach, she says, an expansion project on Interstate 70 will include a new van shuttle system that could grow bigger with demand.
This memo empowers USDOT representatives to the state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to be more vocal and consistent in advancing department priorities. This also gives local, regional, and state community advocates something to point to as they try to build momentum towards decision-making change in the implementation of the federal transportation program in their backyards.
Because of the shortcomings in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)’s actual policy, an enormous amount of pressure now rests on USDOT and Secretary Buttigieg to deliver on the administration’s promises. But the good news is that there are scores of actions that USDOT can take to deliver positive outcomes for equity, climate, safety, state of repair, and enhancing community connections.
This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.
After 200+ weeks of #InfrastructureWeek, Congress was sorely overdue to take action on surface transportation reauthorization since the FAST Act was fast expiring in 2021. The House took up the challenge by crafting and passing the bold five-year INVEST Act in July, which would have moved the needle in major ways. But the Senate failed to produce the same kind of transformative bill, instead playing the politics of “compromise” and “bipartisanship” in what would become the infrastructure deal as we know it (the IIJA).
With the conclusion of #InfrastructureWeek on Capitol Hill and Congress pivoting to other issues of national interest, the media spotlight on the US transportation program will quickly dim.
This is unfortunate, because in many ways, the real work on infrastructure is just beginning—especially for USDOT and the administration. Advocates and the media are failing to grasp that the first year of transportation funding from the IIJA is already flowing out to states and metro areas, supercharging project lists that were decided upon years ago in some cases. And states have made it clear that they plan to maximize the use of the flexibility that they have won from Congress to spend this money how they deem it in their interest.
Using this historic infusion of infrastructure funding to make meaningful progress towards equity, climate change, and fostering community economic opportunities is going to be an uphill battle, but that is what the Biden administration has promised. They certainly have the talent and the expertise to make it happen, but Secretary Buttigieg will need to exercise his authority and the flexibility of US transportation policy to realize these outcomes.
Over the next few weeks, we will unpack the details on a range of actions that could be taken administratively to further our three principles and national priorities of economic development, equity, and climate change mitigation. For now, here are six immediate and important actions that would make a big difference:
1. A new commitment to passenger rail needs equally committed leaders.
As the country begins a heavy investment in intercity passenger rail and Amtrak, its Board of Directors is made up of members whose terms have expired (other than Transportation Secretary Buttigieg and Amtrak CEO Flynn). It is time for the President to nominate a new and current Board to lead Amtrak through this unprecedented opportunity to create a world class passenger rail system and push Amtrak to deliver on a new customer driven service delivery mission.
We cannot and should not accept these fatalities as simply a part of everyday life in America. No one will accomplish this alone. It will take all levels of government, industries, advocates, engineers and communities across the country working together toward the day when family members no longer have to say good-bye to loved ones because of a traffic crash.
—Secretary Buttigieg
With a call to action on safety, the USDOT should bring more attention to the impact of roadway design on safety, including the removal of references to the disproven 40-year old study that claimed 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error and discouraging grantees and the press from using the term ‘accident’ as opposed to ‘crash.’ Furthermore, the USDOT can look to prioritize safety investments across all funding streams (more on that next).
3. Bake important priorities into the many competitive grant programs.
Use competitive grant programs to reward project sponsors that have made a dedicated commitment to safety, state of repair, climate, and equity and to focus the sponsors that have not on addressing those issues. For example, those states who set regressive safety targets could be restricted from getting funding for safety-oriented projects.
4. Require clearer data for the public on transportation emissions.
Track climate emissions per capita from transportation by state and publish results and trends online.
5. Consider the poor track record of transportation models.
Require major NEPA (environmental review) documents to include a report on the past accuracy of any transportation demand modeling used, as well as documenting the expected induced demand from projects.
6. Streamline the arduous process of applying for competitive grants.
The IIJA also establishes several new competitive grant programs. To ensure they are accessible to communities of all sizes and capacity, USDOT should create an easier, more automated process for receiving applications and benefit-cost analyses for all competitive grant programs.
How this historic bill gets implemented and how the hundreds of billions in new transportation spending is spent will determine how far we are able to move the needle on key goals. We will continue to unpack more ways that the administration, states, metros, and advocates can engage in the implementation of the IIJA to produce a transportation system that is safer, cleaner, and more effective at connecting people to jobs and opportunity.
The upcoming continuing resolution to fund the government and avert a shutdown won’t include transportation spending, piling on the pressure to pass the infrastructure deal and budget reconciliation. Congress could end up gutting the reconciliation package to make a deal.
Congress is currently negotiating a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government at current levels and keep things open and functioning through December 3, but, unlike most other CRs, transportation is not in the current CR. So the race is on to pass both the surface transportation reauthorization (the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Senate’s infrastructure deal), and the budget reconciliation by the current September 27 deadline set by Congressional Democrats.
If passed, the current CR will fund only the FAA and the FHWA’s emergency fund, no other transportation programs. This means that without reauthorization, normal authorized funding provided to highways, transit, rail and other programs will come to a halt after September 30, even under this CR. Of course, these things will be funded by reauthorization and reconciliation if they pass, but that is not a given. So without the safety net of a CR, Congress must pass reauthorization by September 30 or risk a shutdown of much of US DOT. That date is coming fast, and the United States government has already begun shutdown planning procedures.
Speaker Pelosi’s dual-track approach has tied the fate of reauthorization to that of budget reconciliation. If Congress can pass reconciliation, they will most likely be able to pass reauthorization. But key Senators are debating the budget’s $3.5 trillion funding level, which may mean that in order to get both bills to pass, Congress could cut reconciliation funding for the transit programs we applauded last week.
For those who wish to improve the nation’s infrastructure, reconciliation is just as important as reauthorization.
If Congress passes reauthorization without the transportation funding in the budget reconciliation package, they will cut $10 billion in transit funding and remove all operations funding for transit agencies. They will fail to provide direct funding to localities, fail to connect affordable housing to services and amenities, and fail to address the impacts of U.S. transportation policy on communities of color.
As we said when the reauthorization text was released, the bill does not represent any sort of policy shift toward safety or connectivity that our communities so desperately need. In fact, it cements irresponsible highway expansion. The transportation programs included in the budget reconciliation package move this reauthorization in the right direction.
To avoid a shutdown that could cripple transportation projects and to improve the infrastructure deal, reconciliation is just as vital to pass as the deal itself.
Former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s appointment as Secretary of Transportation has brought some much-needed attention to this important department— especially from Pete’s former presidential campaign supporters. Here’s a primer for anyone new to transportation policy on how it works, how it’s broken, and what you can do to help fix it.
Pete Buttigieg in February 2020. Photo by Gage Skidmore on Flickr’s Creative Commons.
There’s never been more attention on the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), with hashtags like #LearnAboutDOT, #HighwayHopes, and even #ChastenYourSeatbelts trending among supporters of Pete Buttigieg’s former presidential campaign. It’s good timing: 2021 is a big year for transportation, with the prospect of an infrastructure stimulus on the horizon and long-term surface transportation policy expiring in September.
Here’s a primer on the state of transportation policy—and what you can do to fix it—for anybody interested in making a difference in this critical issue.
What’s the problem with U.S. transportation?
Transportation is the bedrock of our nation’s economy and is critical to addressing our environmental, racial, and economic crises. Yet despite spending billions in federal tax dollars every year, our transportation system is broken:
Our roads, bridges, transit and rail systems are in disrepair
Climate change, racial and economic equity, safety, and infrastructure maintenance are interrelated transportation challenges—just like highways, public transit, biking, walking, and passenger rail are interrelated. But Congress and the federal government apply an outdated 1950s approach to transportation policy, pumping billions into a program designed to build the Interstate Highway System yet expecting different results.
The billions we spend fail to address our most basic need: getting people where they need to go safely and efficiently. Spending more money won’t work without changing what we’re spending money on.
How can we change federal transportation policy?
Every five to six years, Congress passes a long-term transportation law referred to as the “surface transportation authorization.” This law determines what we spend federal transportation funding on. The current authorization, the FAST Act, expires this September, giving Congress a rare opportunity to fundamentally reform transportation policy.
We’re used to not expecting measurable results from the dollars we spend. It’s time to change that. At Transportation for America, we believe that we must orient federal transportation policy according to these three principles to connect our funding to the outcomes Americans desire:
Prioritize maintenance before road expansion;
Design roads for safety over speed, and
Measure transportation success by how well we connect people to jobs and essential services.
Why these three principles? We can cut our maintenance backlog in half by simply dedicating formula highway funds to maintenance—finally “fixing our crumbling roads and bridges,” as politicians love to cry. By designing roads for safer speeds, we can save thousands of lives and make it easier to bike, walk, and ride transit. And by measuring the success of our investments by how well they connect people to the things they need—not how fast cars can drive, which is how we currently measure “success”—we can prioritize investments that improve those connections, regardless of mode. (For a deeper dive on our principles, check out this primer.)
Last summer, the House of Representatives passed a proposal that makes progress on many of our recommendations. This bill—the INVEST Act—can serve as a template for reauthorization proposals this year.
What about an infrastructure stimulus?
Our three principles can apply to anyfederal funding for transportation, including an infrastructure stimulus. If the conversation around a stimulus focuses on how much we’re spending and not what we’re spending it on, it won’t succeed at rebuilding our economy—something we discovered in our analysis of the 2009 Recovery Act.
It’s critical that any COVID-19 stimulus includes at least $39.3 billion in emergency relief for struggling public transit systems. This funding will prevent cuts to transit service through the end of 2023.
Public transit’s revenue has been decimated by the pandemic, yet millions of riders continue to rely on transit to reach jobs, healthcare, groceries, and other vital resources. Without continued emergency support, transit will not be able to connect riders—particularly low-income riders and people of color—with the places they need.
What can Secretary Buttigieg do?
Without changing federal transportation policy, USDOT doesn’t have much power to fundamentally change our transportation system. But there are some reforms Secretary Buttigieg can make without an act of Congress, including:
working with President Biden to reinstate the greenhouse gas performance measure for transportation (overturned by the Trump administration);
and making multimodal access data available to local planners.
You can read more of these recommendations—and our reasoning behind them—in our memo to the Biden administration.
What can I do to help?
In the short term, supporting emergency relief for public transit is critical. Congress needs to pass at least $39 billion to prevent transit cuts through the end of 2023. Please call, email and tweet your Congressional delegation to preserve the $30 billion in emergency relief the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee included in their COVID-19 relief package, and advocate for passing an additional $9.3 billion in subsequent legislation.
In the long-term, you can help Congress pass a better transportation authorization. Members of Congress rarely hear from constituents about transportation policy (which is part of the reason why members of Congress bipartisanly agree to maintain the broken status quo)—so you calling, emailing, and tweeting at your representatives goes a long way.
As Congressional committees start to draft proposals to reauthorize transportation policy, we need grassroots advocates ready to fight for fundamental reform. Subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter to stay tuned for upcoming actions on transportation policy. (And follow us on Twitter.)
A new presidential administration means a brand new set of political appointees. Luckily, the Biden administration’s picks for top jobs in the U.S. Department of Transportation give us reasons to be optimistic. Here are our thoughts on the appointees, and a reminder that we can’t rest easy: we need to seize this historic opportunity in our fight for transportation that actually connects Americans to the places they need.
The U.S. Department of Transportation. Photo by the author.
Deputy Secretary: Polly Trottenberg
Polly Trottenberg has led one of the most storied transportation careers we can think of: assistant secretary for transportation policy and under secretary for policy in the Obama administration, a Senate staffer for over 12 years, and most recently—and perhaps most prolifically—the commissioner of New York City’s Department of Transportation. Her leadership in lowering all NYC speed limits to 25 mph is a major testament to her vision and willpower.
What she brings to USDOT: Trottenberg has a strong understanding of the transportation system, the needs of cities, and how federal policy often undermines municipal attempts to reverse autocentric planning. This background—coupled with her vast management experience bringing innovation to one of the country’s largest DOTs—could be game changing in the upper echelon of USDOT leadership.
As our director Beth Osborne put it to E&E News:
“Polly was a groundbreaking leader of New York City’s Department of Transportation, consistently challenging the transportation status quo, including lowering speed limits to 25 mph to reduce crashes and roadway fatalities. This is just one of her many accomplishments. I’m lucky to count Polly as a friend and colleague from my time working at USDOT and on Capitol Hill, and know firsthand that her vision and breadth of government experience will help the new administration modernize the US transportation program and system. We’re excited to work with her!”
Federal Highways Deputy Administrator: Stephanie Pollack
Massachusetts’ Secretary of Transportation for the past five years, Stephanie Pollack’s selection as Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sends a strong message. She’s a long-time advocate for increased investment in public transit. As secretary, she led the way on greenhouse gas reduction, including helping to shape the Transportation Climate Initiative, which Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed onto . She has also made safe access to walking and biking a priority in MassDOT’s street designs, especially near transit.
What she brings to USDOT: Pollack understands state DOTs—a major recipient of FHWA funding. She’s also committed to the safety of all road users, and understands that street design is critical in the effort to save lives and improve access to jobs and services.
Take this powerful quote from Pollack for a sense of how she’ll lead at FHWA:
“Some people think it’s a little odd that I’m headed to [the] Federal Highway [Administration]. But many of you have heard me say that I don’t think of people as pedestrians or bicyclists or bus riders or transit users or drivers. I think of them as people who need the transportation system to help connect them to the things they want and need. And so I go into Federal Highway with a mindset that it can be an agency that supports people rather than a singular mode of transportation.”
National Highway Traffic Safety Deputy Administrator: Steve Cliff
Since 2017, Steve Cliff has been chief of the California Air Resources Board, a state agency “charged with protecting the public from the harmful effects of air pollution and developing programs and actions to fight climate change.” Which might make Cliff an unusual choice for Deputy Administrator of NHTSA, a federal agency overwhelmingly focused on the safety of people inside cars—but that’s exactly what makes his selection exciting.
What he brings to USDOT: A climate leader like Cliff at USDOT who knows that reducing vehicle miles traveled (and not justinvesting in electric vehicles) is critical to reducing emissions will help shift USDOT’s role in fighting climate change in necessary ways.
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy: Christopher Coes
As of January 19th, Christopher Coes was our coworker! For 10 years, Christopher has shaped the direction of our parent organization, Smart Growth America, most recently serving as our vice president of land use and development and Director of SGA’s LOCUS coalition of real estate developers and investors.
What he brings to USDOT: As the chief of SGA’s land use initiatives, Christopher has a deep understanding of the intersection between housing, land use and transportation—knowledge that is essential to creating a transportation system that efficiently, conveniently, affordably and sustainably connects people with the things they need.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Safety Policy: Robin Hutcheson
Robin Hutcheson was most recently the director of Public Work in Minneapolis and President of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)’s Board of Directors. Previously, she was the director of transportation for Salt Lake City.
What she brings to USDOT: Hutcheson understands new mobility, curb management, and the design changes needed in order to build safe, transit-friendly streets in towns and cities. Her years of helming NACTO and transportation in Minneapolis—one of the cities that participated in our 2020 Smart Cities Collaborative—are testament to this.
Director of the Office of Civil Rights: Irene Marion
Irene Marion was the Equity and Inclusion Manager for the Portland (OR) Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). At USDOT, her new role makes her responsible for enforcing civil rights across all federally funded transportation programs.
What she brings to USDOT: Marion’s experience defining transportation justice for PBOT will be critical in advancing racial justice at USDOT, a department responsible for a sector that President Biden and incoming Secretary Buttigieg both billed as sources of racial inequality.
NEW EDITION: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology: Robert Hampshire
Robert Hampshire is an associate professor at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy “whose research and policy engagement focuses on understanding the societal, climate and equity implications of autonomous and connected vehicles and other innovative mobility services,” as per this press release.
What he brings to USDOT: The equity and climate implications of automated vehicles (AVs) have not been robustly considered in any effort to regulate this new technology. With Congressional interest in passing AV policy mounting, Hampshire’s research and expertise in this area will be critical in the effort to ensure that AVs help improve equity and our climate, not make these problems worse.
There are many other exciting appointees in addition to those highlighted here, including Nuria Fernandez at the Federal Transit Administration, Amit Bose at the Federal Railroad Administration and Meera Joshi at the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration.
It’s a “dream team,” but we still need to hold them accountable
Pedestrian safety advocate Angie Schmitt said it first: the Biden administration has put together a “dream team” for USDOT. This is definitely one of the most exciting groups of political appointees we’ve seen for the department. But these capable leaders cannot reform our transportation system alone. We need to hold them accountable to doing their part to make U.S. transportation safe, accessible, sustainable, and equitable within their authority at USDOT. That means more than running the current program well. It means making permanent changes to the program that makes it hard for leaders in the future to run it poorly.
At the same time, we need to support their efforts by urging Congress to pass long-term surface transportation policy that throws out the broken status quo and actually connects federal funding with the outcomes Americans want: getting to where they need to go.
Last Thursday, former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg faced the Senate for questioning on his nomination to be Secretary of Transportation. We liked almost all of his answers, and we weren’t alone: Senator Tester said Buttigieg’s testimony was “refreshing.” Here’s what T4America liked and didn’t like from Buttigieg’s confirmation hearing.
Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg facing the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee as President Biden’s nominee to be Secretary of Transportation. Screen grab from C-SPAN.
✅ Complete Streets is a priority for Buttigieg
When answering a powerfully-worded question from Senator Schatz (D-HI), a cosponsor of the Complete Streets Act, Buttigieg confirmed his commitment to a Complete Streets approach. He even highlighted the Complete Streets projects that took place in South Bend. (Smart Growth America provided technical assistance to South Bend to pursue Complete Streets demonstration projects.)
“It’s very important to recognize the importance of roadways where pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, any other mode can coexist peacefully. And that Complete Streets vision will continue to enjoy support from me if confirmed,” Buttgieg said.
✅ Our “autocentric view” is a problem
Doubling down on his commitment to Complete Streets, Buttigieg noted that transportation in the United States overwhelmingly prioritizes cars. “There are so many ways that people get around, and I think often we have an autocentric view that forgets historically all of the other different modes,” Buttigieg told Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN). “We want to make sure that every time we do a street design that it enables cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, and businesses and any other mode to coexist in a positive way. We should be putting funding behind that.”
✅ Addressing past damages is a priority
Transportation infrastructure—particularly urban highways that have demolished and divided communities of color—is sometimes a major roadblock to improving equity in this country. Buttigieg knows this and told senators so in his opening remarks. “I also recognize that at their worst, misguided policies and missed opportunities in transportation can reinforce racial and economic inequality, by dividing or isolating neighborhoods and undermining government’s basic role of empowering Americans to thrive,” Buttigieg said.
✅ Policy hasn’t kept up with automated vehicles
Automated vehicles (AVs) is one of the transportation technologies that often captures lawmakers’ imagination. But in response to Sen. Fischer (R-NE), Buttigieg acknowledged that the federal government has failed to provide the leadership necessary to ensure that AVs actually deliver the benefits they promise. “[AV technology] is advancing quickly and has the potential to be transformative, but in a lot of ways, policy hasn’t kept up,” Buttigieg said.
This couldn’t be more true. After investigating deaths from two separate AV crashes, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) billed the utter lack of federal safety performance standards as one of the causes for the fatalities.
But proactive federal policy is needed for more than just ensuring that AVs are safe. Policy is needed to ensure that AVs are equitable, accessible, and sustainable. That’s why we joined Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and other partners in creating tenets for AV policy.
✅ He supports passenger rail
Buttigieg said he’s the “second biggest enthusiast for passenger rail in this administration,” referring of course to President Biden, a long-time rider and fan of Amtrak, as the first. “Americans deserve the highest standard of passenger rail,” Buttigieg said.
When Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)—a major supporter of restoring passenger rail to the Gulf Coast—asked Buttigieg if he’s a rail rider himself, Buttigieg said he enjoys short rail trips “and long ones too.” In light of Amtrak’s proposal to cut its long-distance network, this might signal Buttigieg’s support for those critical routes.
✅ The BUILD program should be easier to apply for
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) offers a host of grant programs for cities and towns to construct and maintain transportation infrastructure. But the application process is often daunting for smaller entities. As mayor of a small city that wasn’t able to have “full-time staff managing federal relations,” Buttigieg told Sen. Wicker (R-MS) that making BUILD and INFRA grants easier for small and rural municipalities to apply for are one of his priorities.
“It’s very important to me that this process is user-friendly, that criteria are transparent, and that communities of every size, including rural communities and smaller communities, have every opportunity to access those funds,” Buttigieg said.
✅ Senators on both side of the aisle support Buttigieg
Buttigieg felt the love from both sides of the aisle during his confirmation hearing, with Sen. Tester (D-MT) going as far to say that Buttigieg’s testimony should serve as a model for other nominees facing Senate approval. Sen. Wicker (R-MS) listed Buttigieg’s accomplishments in his opening statement, praising his “impressive credentials that demonstrate his intellect and commitment to serving our nation.”
With slim Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate, bipartisanship will be key to passing surface transportation authorization. But historically, infrastructure is one the areas where lawmakers bipartisanly agree to pass bad policy—rather than ruffling feathers and taking a hard look at what the federal government spends money on and why. (We blogged about it here.) It will take lots of work—like the herculean effort the House underwent this summer to pass a new kind of transportation bill—to make sure that the long-term transportation bill lawmakers must pass this year actually connects funding with the outcomes Americans want.
🚫 His climate answer only mentioned electric vehicles
When Sen. Schatz asked about Buttigieg’s approach to climate change, Buttigieg only discussed electric vehicles, charging infrastructure, and increased vehicle fuel efficiency as a solution. Yet it’s a fact that electric vehicles and improved fuel efficiency—while critical—aren’t enough to reduce transportation emissions on their own.
While we applaud Buttigieg’s support of President Biden’s “whole government” approach to addressing climate change (meaning that climate work isn’t confined to a single department like the EPA), we need Buttigieg to understand that USDOT needs to do more than invest in electric vehicles as a climate solution.
We like what we heard. Now let’s make sure it happens
Buttigieg might be one of the most promising new Secretaries of Transportation that we’ve seen, but we must hold him accountable to following through on these initiatives. Now is not the time to lay back: we have a lot of work to do to ensure that USDOT does what it can internally to connect transportation funding to the outcomes Americans want (like our three principles) and that Congress passes a long-term transportation bill that ends decades of broken, misguided policy.
Former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has just been picked as President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Transportation.Here is a statement from our director, Beth Osborne, on his selection.
“We are very excited to hear that Pete Buttigieg has been nominated to be Secretary of Transportation,” said Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America. “As mayor of South Bend, he showed great commitment to the safety of all road users through Complete Streets and that Complete Streets were about economic development because they better serve local residents and businesses. For example, our sister organization, the National Complete Streets Coalition, worked directly with South Bend on a Complete Streets demonstration project focused on reducing speeding on a neighborhood street. As a candidate for president, he proposed a fix-it-first approach to highway funding, a national Vision Zero strategy, and measures to organize the federal transportation program around improving access to jobs and essential services for drivers and non-drivers alike. We look forward to working with him in his new post at USDOT.”
We analyzed Buttigieg’s transportation plan from his presidential campaign back in February. Check out the analysis here.
Congress required USDOT to spend its 2018 transit funds by the end of this year, and USDOT was poised to fail. But at the last minute, Congress bailed them out by easing the requirement. As the deadline approaches, USDOT is still sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that it refuses to award, unnecessarily delaying critical new transit projects.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is approaching an important deadline. After the agency proved that it couldn’t be trusted to execute transit grants in good faith, Congress imposed a December 31, 2019 deadline for “obligating,” or awarding, 85 percent of the $2.6 billion dedicated to the Capital Investment Grant program in 2018. That was 22 months ago. With only a couple weeks left in the year, USDOT has failed to hit that mark, but earlier this year, Congress blinked and bailed USDOT out by lowering the bar for them.
When initially passed last year, the deadline was an important, bipartisan signal that Congress was unhappy about USDOT ignoring the law, flouting congressional intent, and purposefully sabotaging transit expansion.
But Congress watered down this requirement recently to say USDOT only has to “allocate” funding—a relatively toothless standard. Allocation is not the same thing as obligation and just means that USDOT has made room in a spreadsheet for eventually spending the money on a particular project. It results in zero dollars actually going to build or improve new transit without additional approvals and action by USDOT.
When it comes to FY18 dollars, though Congress threw them a lifeline, USDOT is still sitting on more than $668 million that it hasn’t obligated to transit projects. One of those allocations was made as far back as November 2018. These perplexing and avoidable federal delays seriously disrupt local project timelines and budgets.
As of publication, USDOT has only awarded (i.e. obligated) about 77 percent of the 2018 dollars Congress dedicated to transit grants that could be used to get new transit projects started across the country. But USDOT has “allocated” 98 percent of the 2018 grant funding available. That’s small consolation to the communities that have been waiting for up to nine months since they received an allocation on a USDOT spreadsheet for their shovel-ready transit projects to receive funding they can actually use.
Given the new standard, we should congratulate USDOT. They have successfully ignored Congress in order to push an anti-transit agenda that is broadly opposed on Capitol Hill and in the public—and they are going to get away with it. The bar has been lowered so much that USDOT can step over it without actually doing its job. Perhaps in the new year, the U.S. Department of Transportation will finally find its sense of purpose and start funding these critical transportation projects, and Congress will be able to find a way to hold USDOT’s feet to the fire. USDOT has already allocated the funding; it’s time to start spending it.
Federal grants for multimodal projects announced this month are decidedly not multimodal. As our research has shown previously, the Trump administration has dramatically undermined this grant program by funding traditional road projects that could otherwise already be funded by states, siphoning resources from other, harder to fund projects—the original intent of the program. But the U.S. House has adopted some policy changes to try and salvage some of what made the BUILD program so popular under the Obama administration.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) announced $900 million in BUILD grants to fund transportation projects around the county. Unlike many federal grant programs, BUILD grants are uniquely flexible—any government entity can apply for funding on almost any kind of transportation project, making worthy multimodal projects and complicated projects that cross jurisdictions easier to pay for.
The BUILD program was created under the Obama administration—and originally named TIGER—but after taking over, the Trump administration has more or less ignored this unique flexibility and turned the program into a subsidy for run-of-the-mill road projects that could be built with some of the billions states get each year for roads and highways. The awards released two weeks ago are further evidence of this trend.
We explored these changes last year with an in-depth analysis showing how the Trump administration has dramatically shifted priorities.
In the two most recent rounds of TIGER/BUILD awards—the first two years the program was managed by the Trump administration—only about 10 percent of funding went to transit projects. This is a big departure from the previous eight years when transit projects received between 28 and 40 percent of funding. Conversely, the share of funding dedicated to traditional road projects has grown to all-time highs; in 2018, road projects—most of which are eligible to receive normal formula dollars from their state—received more than 60 percent of the funding for the first time, after hovering below 30 percent for years.
2019 is just more of the same. According to a quick analysis of the projects selected, more than 70 percent of the funding went to conventional road and bridge projects—a huge share for a program still billed as an opportunity “to obtain funding for multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional DOT programs.”
But these changes haven’t gone unnoticed. In that same analysis—Taming the TIGER—we included some simple policy recommendations for Congress to fix the BUILD/TIGER program specifically and to improve the federal transportation program broadly. Some of these recommendations have been taken up by the U.S. House in their most recent annual transportation funding bill. Among the changes we’ve advocated for are:
A set aside of $15 million for planning grants and requiring the USDOT secretary to award planning grants with an emphasis on transit, transit-oriented development, and multi-modal projects.
A doubling of the maximum award to $50 million.
A consideration of project benefits beyond its physical location in an urban or rural area to the fullest extent to include all relevant geographic areas.
These are good recommendations, but they were not included in the Senate’s version of this annual transportation funding bill. For the House language to be included in the final bill, it needs to be accepted in the conference committee when the House and Senate reconcile the differences in their bills.
When Congress finally passes their funding bills (repeatedly hung up due to disagreement about funding for a border wall), incorporating the House’s proposed changes to the BUILD program will help it accomplish its stated goals despite the administration’s efforts to use it as a way to give states just a little bit more money to spend on the same old projects.
A heat map of bike accessibility in the San Francisco Bay Area. Lighter colors indicate fewer jobs can be reached within 30 minutes on “medium-stress” bike routes while darker colors indicate more jobs can be reached. Map via University of Minnesota Accessibility Observatory.
Measuring access—not vehicle speed—is smart policy. But local governments, states, and metropolitan planning organizations need support from the federal government to make this happen. It’s high time for Congress to make robust travel data and analysis tools available to transportation agencies.
It’s “Connecting people to jobs and services week” here at Transportation for America. All week we’ll be exploring why improving access should be the goal of the federal transportation program—not vehicle speed.
Having thousands of jobs within a region doesn’t do much good if residents don’t have convenient, safe, and affordable transportation options to reach those jobs. That’s why the concept of measuring whether transportation investments improve access to jobs and services can be transformative. Improving access to jobs and services, not merely aiming for high-speed vehicle travel within a corridor or minimal delay, should be the goal of our transportation investments.
But right now, the implicit goal of all federal transportation investments is to increase vehicle speed, not improve access. Changing the goal from vehicle speed to improving access requires rethinking our federal transportation policy from the ground up.
With the current authorization for federal transportation spending—the FAST Act—set to expire in 2020, it’s time for Congress to determine transportation policy for the next five to six years. Once passed, this legislation will set federal funding levels and policy for transportation for the bill’s duration. It is critical for this bill to reform the federal program to prioritize access.
We need to determine how well the transportation system connects people to jobs and services, and prioritize projects that will improve those connections. Congress should require USDOT to collect the data necessary to develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services and set national goals for improvement.
To do this, Congress should:
Determine national connectivity: USDOT should develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services, and set national goals for improvement.
Measure the right things: apply accessibility to the federal transportation program in performance management and project selection.
Update standards: Phase out outdated metrics such as level of level of service.
Use 21st century tools: USDOT should provide accessibility data to states, MPOs, and local communities.
States such as Utah, Delaware, Virginia, California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii along with the cities of Sacramento and Los Angeles are already utilizing this type of data and seeing results.
Unfortunately, states and MPOs must currently pay to access this data while far less useful congestion data is made readily available by USDOT.
A bill before Congress would pilot destination access; let’s take it a step further
Earlier this year, members of Congress introduced the bipartisan Connecting Opportunities through Mobility Metrics and Unlocking Transportation Efficiencies (COMMUTE) Act in both the House and Senate. This legislation would pilot measuring access nationwide. We are grateful for the leadership of Senators Baldwin (D-WI) and Ernst (R-IA) and Congressman DeSaulnier (D-CA) along with Reps. Curtis (R-UT) and McAdams (D-UT), in the House.
The COMMUTE Act would create a competitive pilot program to provide five states, 10 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and five rural planning organizations with data sets to calculate how many jobs and services (such as schools, medical facilities, banks, and groceries) are accessible by all modes of travel. These data sets will also be made available to local governments and researchers.
In July, Congress took an important first step on transportation policy when the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee approved its portion of a surface transportation reauthorization bill (America’s Transportation Infrastructure Act). We were happy the bill included a pilot program based on the COMMUTE Act to help a select group of states and metros measure whether or not their investments are connecting people to jobs and services. This demonstrated the bipartisan support for the common sense idea of measuring the success of our transportation system by whether it creates access to jobs and services.
But we can and should do more. Access to jobs and services has to be the core of any transportation authorization. Support for the pilot in the Senate indicates an opportunity to do much more. That is why we are urging Congress to go further and require USDOT to collect the data necessary to develop a national assessment of access to jobs and services and set national goals for improvement.
The House of Representatives will soon release its proposed surface transportation authorization. This is an opportunity to demonstrate a new vision for transportation, based on modern data and valuing what really matters.
It’s time for Congress to act and hold ourselves accountable for improving access.
The INFRA grant program was intended to repair our crumbling infrastructure. So why is half of the money going toward expanding highways?
The Trump administration recently announced $855 million in infrastructure grants through the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) discretionary competitive grant program. INFRA grants have been touted by this administration as a major way the federal government is rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, but after examining the project list, much of the funding is going to highway expansion, not repair.
INFRA Grants, established by the FAST Act in 2015, are supposed to promote regional economic vitality goals and are evaluated by a set of criteria, including the project’s potential for innovation. But we know that highways alone don’t achieve economic vitality and are not innovative investments.
So what kind of infrastructure projects received grants from USDOT? We took a look at the latest round of grants and analyzed the type of projects receiving funding. Of the $855 million awarded in this most recent round, 78 percent, or $667 million, went to highway projects and only a fraction went to projects that contained a multimodal or resiliency component as described in the project fact sheets.
And while politicians and policymakers continue to pay lip service to the notion of prioritizing repair and “fix-it-first,” we continue to have little to show for all the rhetoric. Repair Priorities showed that states are spending just as much on expansion as repair with their core federal transportation dollars. That trend extends to these INFRA grants, where about equal amounts were given to projects that expanded or added new capacity as repaired existing roads and bridges.
As with the BUILD grant program, the Trump administration is also steering a greater share of this program’s dollars toward rural areas. Though 25 percent of the INFRA program’s grants are required to go to rural projects, the USDOT has far exceeded that requirement with 54 percent of all funding going toward rural areas in this most recent round of grants. Funding only road projects in rural areas, rather than innovative multimodal projects, leaves many of these communities without transportation options and stuck in their cars.
The INFRA grants announcement is unfortunately another example of USDOT prioritizing building more highways over multimodal investment. States are already guaranteed over $40 billion in federal funding for highways, but too many states spend that on expanding highways rather than maintaining what they already have.
And just like with the BUILD program, this begs the obvious question: Why use a new, flexible, competitive grant program ostensibly for “fixing our nation’s infrastructure” (as DOT says) merely to fund new highways when highways already receive billions in dedicated federal funding?
If DOT does want to “repair our crumbling infrastructure,” a decent start would be to award 100% of INFRA grants towards projects that actually prioritize repair. And perhaps after that, Congress could take the logical step of requiring states to actually reduce their maintenance and repair backlogs rather than creating new grant programs to fulfill what should be a core function of the overall federal program: taking care of our existing assets.
On Tuesday, voters in Phoenix resoundingly voted to reaffirm their support for the city’s transit expansion plans. But while the city can now move beyond this threat to its transit ambitions, the region joins scores of others still waiting on the Trump administration for federal transit funding.
On Tuesday, Phoenix, AZ residents threw their support behind transit, quashing an effort to end all future investment in light rail with 63 percent of votes in favor of continuing the city’s expansion plans. It’s hard to overstate the importance of this vote and it marks the fourth time that Phoenix voters have gone to the ballot box and registered their overwhelming support for transit since 2000. Four years ago voters approved a 0.3 percent sales tax increase to move numerous transit projects forward, and last Tuesday, in even greater numbers, Phoenix voters reaffirmed that commitment.
But will USDOT follow through and match that commitment?
At least three light rail projects in the city can continue to move forward now that the results are in and the south/central extension and downtown hub is ready to begin construction as soon as October—but only if the federal funding comes through. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has yet to sign a grant agreement and award the money to Valley Transit.
What USDOT has done is “allocate” the first portion of a $345 million grant for this project back in July, but as we’ve explained previously, USDOT “allocating” funds is simply moving around numbers on a spreadsheet. For Phoenix to actually receive their funding, USDOT must sign a final grant agreement, something they’ve been notoriously unwilling to do.
First the Koch brothers, now USDOT
The campaign against light rail in Phoenix was run by local activists but supported and funded by the conservative Koch brothers who have a long history of trying to derail transit investments around the country.
With the referendum out of the way and light rail back on track, the federal government could now be the city’s biggest obstacle to completing the south/central extension on time. Under the Trump administration, USDOT has worked diligently and effectively to hamstring federal funding for transit.
Every time USDOT allocates funding to a project and puts out a press release, local media runs glowing stories about those local projects being “approved” or “advanced,” while often failing to note that no money is actually awarded and projects still aren’t cleared to start construction. There are currently 10 projects that have received funding allocations from USDOT but still have not yet received a grant agreement. Two of those projects were “allocated” money nine months ago. Phoenix received its allocation more recently, just days before a U.S. House oversight hearing into USDOT’s (mis)management of the transit grant program in July.
During the hearing, the acting administrator at the Federal Transit Administration within USDOT, K. Jane Williams, said, “in our administration, when we make an allocation, it is our signal that we will sign a grant agreement.”
The projects that have been waiting nine months might disagree with that statement. Though Phoenix is rightfully taking a well-deserved victory lap after a major win at the ballot box, it remains to be seen how long Phoenix will have to wait for it’s funding.
See Stuck in the Station for more information about federal funding delays for transit projects.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 16, to question the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) about its ongoing failure to release billions of congressionally-appropriated funds for local transit projects in a timely fashion through the transit Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program.
Construction on the Crenshaw/LAX line in Los Angeles. Photo by LA Metro.
While the hearing’s second panel was far less informative or helpful (more on that later), the first panel consisted solely of Acting FTA Administrator K. Jane Williams answering questions from a number of committee members about the impacts of USDOT’s and FTA’s efforts to slow down grants from the lone federal program dedicated to building new and expanded public transit.
Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) opened strong, reporting committee staff’s analysis of FTA’s data on its administering of the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. (You can read the full findings here.) Staff found that delays in obligating CIG funds have doubled since the Obama administration, despite Trump administration claims that “environmental reviews” were what slowed down delivery, according to DeFazio.
Committee staff also found that the CIG cost share of transit projects has decreased, falling from an Obama administration height of CIG funds composing 50 percent of a project’s funding to now, where CIG funds constitute no more than 36.6 percent. According to DeFazio, this is because the FTA has made it known to transit agencies that projects asking for “over 40 percent won’t be funded or will receive a low rating.”
The FTA’s spreadsheet sleight-of-hand
Back in April, the FTA released a statement announcing $1.36 billion in federal funding “allocations” to 16 projects. As we’ve noted already, allocations are simply a spreadsheet exercise. While normally an important step in the typical process for grants, no agreement is signed, no money changes hands and local communities are not able to proceed with construction.
In her testimony, Acting FTA administrator K. Jane Williams referenced allocating $825 million worth of CIG projects this year, saying that, “in our administration, when we make an allocation, it is our signal that we will sign a grant agreement.”
That was certainly the case during previous administrations, and the Acting Administrator’s comment is welcome. However, the Acting Administrator did not state how long communities should expect to wait between an allocation and a grant agreement. Indeed, FTA’s actions over the last two-and-a-half years tell a different story. Under this administration, projects have languished for months after receiving an allocation. Many that received allocations last year are still waiting for their signed grant agreement that actually give them the funding to proceed.
Because Trump’s USDOT requested zero dollars for new transit projects for two years , FTA also halted the standard practice of publishing clear reports along with the annual budget request that specifically described which projects would receive funding that fiscal year. Without these reports (and even less information publicly available online) it is difficult for Congress and the public to hold the FTA accountable. Allocating funds without these reports, and without a clear commitment to advancing projects through the pipeline, is confusing and misleading to the public.
There are certainly delays coming from somewhere
Acting Administrator Williams was asked very directly about delays for these projects, and she gave a direct but very carefully worded answer: “There is not an FFGA, SSGA or Letter of No Prejudice on my desk, my leadership’s desk, or OMB’s desk. So there are no delays happening.” When asked a follow-up question about her answer, she affirmed that “there is not one single project waiting for my action as I sit here today.”
But that’s exactly the problem: nobody—transit agencies, local governments, or us at T4America—know precisely what is causing delays. This is made worse by the FTA no longer publishing the reports that enable Congress and the public to hold them accountable.
The Acting Administrator blamed delays on local communities. However, we know that it has been nearly 500 days since FY2018 appropriations were signed, and FTA still has not identified the specific CIG projects for all of the available 2018 funding. We also know that local communities and project sponsors report poor communication with FTA, a lack of transparency, and numerous bureaucratic hurdles to advancing projects.
If FTA will not help local communities then the projects will never advance to the Acting Administrator (or anyone else’s) desk—it’s a catch-22.
Committee members from both parties understand how important transit is
Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN) doesn’t have any CIG projects in his district. But he knows that investing in transit is good for his state not just by improving people’s transportation options, but by supporting manufacturing jobs up the supply chain. Trains and buses and rails all need to be built; investing in transit directly supports these industries. Indiana is home to 193 of these manufacturers.
Across the aisle, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) grilled the FTA Acting Administrator on whether the FTA records and calculates the cost to communities of transit funding delays. The (roundabout) answer: if the FTA does collect that information, it won’t be sharing it.
Testimony about transit focused on roads
After two hours of testimony and questions spotlighting the FTA, a second panel focused on transit capital grants with testimony from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the Kansas City Streetcar Authority. Although the House T&I committee is charged with writing policy and has no jurisdiction over money, these testimonies, particularly ARTBA’s, went straight to talking about the Highway Trust Fund.
There was also a lot of discussion about the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization, an issue that House T&I has jurisdiction over but was not the focus of the hearing.
There was one cool and unexpected comment, though: APTA’s president, Paul Skoutelas, proudly told the committee that he doesn’t own a car, saying “I take the bus.” We love that!
Some transit agencies are unwilling to speak up
We’ve heard that local governments and transit agencies are hesitant to be publicly critical of the FTA—especially when they have projects in the pipeline or in development. The only witness before the House T&I Committee that actually applied for CIG funding was the Kansas City Streetcar Authority. The agency is waiting for $330 million to extend its popular line. We were thrilled to hear that they have had a positive experience. However, plenty of other agencies have seen their costs rise because of delays, a few of which we chronicled before the hearing, and which were well documented in the Committee staff report.
By the time this second panel started with ARTBA, the T&I Committee room had mostly emptied out, signaling that perhaps the members of the committee were as skeptical about the utility of this second panel as we were before the hearing.
On what does the House T&I Committee have jurisdiction?
Members and witnesses alike both regularly strayed into off-topic remarks that were beyond both the topic of the hearing (transit grants) and the jurisdiction of the committee. Raising the gas tax received a lot of air time, as well as electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, and of course the obligatory mention of Hyperloop.
Yet the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has limited or no jurisdiction over these things. Especially the question of raising the gas tax—that’s a matter for the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
What this committee does have jurisdiction over is how the FTA administers transit grant programs. The first half of the hearing was a good start, but the small amount of progress the FTA has made in the last year has been the direct result of pressure from the public and Congress, and the committee will need to keep up the urgency on advancing these projects in a timely fashion.
USDOT has been slow-walking federal transit funding since the Trump administration took office and the U.S. House is finally undertaking an oversight hearing to hold them accountable. Here’s a look at one major way USDOT is misleading the public about their lack of progress and some of the impact it’s had on local communities.
Today at 10 a.m., the U.S. House is holding its first oversight hearing on the US Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) efforts to undermine federal transit funding. (Live stream available at the above link.) Since taking office, the administration has inexplicably delayed federal grants for major transit projects, become less responsive, helpful and timely in shepherding projects through the application process, and radically scaled back the amount of information it releases publicly. And the information USDOT does release regarding capital transit grants is often very misleading, designed to make it look like the agency is doing its job when it’s actually not.
Decrypting USDOT
To understand how USDOT is misleading the public it’s important to understand how these capital grant works.
Under previous administrations, USDOT would publish a list of projects it anticipated funding in the following year (it’s a multi-year grant process) and then Congress would fund the program with the requisite amount intended for those projects. As grant applications were tweaked and finalized, USDOT would allocate funding to particular projects before a final grant agreement was signed—which usually happened soon afterward—and money was officially out the door to the project.
Under the current administration, USDOT has stopped publishing a list of projects it anticipates funding next year because they’re ideologically opposed to funding any transit projects. But the transit capital program has bipartisan support and Congress has continued to appropriate funds for it—three times during this administration. Now USDOT—specifically the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) within USDOT—”allocates” funding to projects, they put out a press release lauding their work, newspapers announce USDOT has funded a project (they haven’t), yet no money has changed hands. Getting an “allocation” today just means USDOT moved numbers around on internal spreadsheet, nothing more.
Communities experience real harm
The whole application process is designed to insulate the federal government from losses. Before signing a grant agreement everything has to be in order: local funding must be secured, land acquired, project design finalized, etc. But what happens when communities get their ducks in a row, have put out bids for construction, and then wait…and wait…and wait for a federal agency that doesn’t want to do its job? Materials don’t get less expensive with time (they get more expensive) and bids come with expiration dates; when they expire, the whole bidding process which can take multiple months has to be repeated. While dozens of projects are still waiting for federal funding, here is the impact on three different transit projects, each of which USDOT has “allocated” funds for but which have not received a grant agreement.
The Bay Area
The Transbay Core Capacity Project is a $3.5 billion package of improvements that will help purchase new rail cars for BART and increase capacity in the transbay tube that connects San Francisco and Oakland. According to Railway Age:
BART is ready to move the Transbay Corridor Core Capacity Project into the Engineering phase, and [BART General Manager Grace] Crunican said the agency cannot proceed without FTA funding. She said the project has been delayed by FTA for more than a year, and every year of delay will cost taxpayers an estimated $120 million. BART had been anticipating FTA approval for entry into the Engineering phase by late 2018.
FTA has recently “allocated” $300 million for the Transbay Core Capacity Project from 2018 funds—an unusually high amount—but this does not supply the agency with any funding. Annual grants usually top out at around $100 million (this is a multi-year grant), but FTA has broken with that practice, likely to avoid having to fund other transit projects with the other $200 million.
Los Angeles
The Purple Line Subway Extension, Phase III is the final extension of this subway line that is planned to be completed in time for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. It will connect the Veterans Administration Medical Center and UCLA (which will host the Olympic Village) to the rest of the Los Angeles rail system. According to an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the LA Metro was up against a clock last year with construction bids set to expire:
The construction bid expires Oct. 3 [2018]. If Metro doesn’t get the funding commitment by then, the agency will have to rebid the contract. That could delay the project by nearly two years and increase the cost by $200 million, Metro officials say.
LA Metro did not receive a construction agreement by October 3, but they did get what’s known as a Letter of No Prejudice (or LONP) just before the deadline that allowed them to begin construction using local funds (and with no guarantee of future federal funding). The project has since received two separate “allocation” of $100 million, one from FY 2018 funding and one from FY 2019 funding. While construction has begun, there is still no funding agreement in place.
Twin Cities
The Southwest Light Rail Extension will extend the Green Line—which connects downtown St. Paul & Minneapolis—from downtown Minneapolis to the southeast suburbs, connecting some major employment centers. After unexplained delays and approaching deadlines, the Star Tribune penned an editorial urging USDOT to act:
The Met Council pleaded for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) action before Sept. 30 [2018], when two key civil contractor bids were set to expire and while sufficient time remained in the current construction season for preliminary work to begin. Those pleas went unheeded, with no explanation. This week, Met Council officials asked bidders for a 45-day extension. Only the low bidder, Lunda/C.S. McCrossan at $799 million, agreed. That leaves Ames/Kraemer, which had bid $812 million, out of contention.
Due to federal delays, Minneapolis was left with only one bidder willing to build its light rail line. But USDOT still failed to act. With only days left before the bid expired—after the extension— Minneapolis received a Letter of No Prejudice and was able to begin construction. Like Los Angeles, there is still no grant agreement in place, which means zero guarantee of federal funding.
These are just three examples of how USDOT is harming communities and undermining their progress on the ground. While many others have experienced similar frustrations and unexplained delays, they are reluctant to speak out publicly for fear of drawing the administration’s ire and further jeopardizing their funding.
These unexpected, unexplained, and unnecessary delays from USDOT are inexcusable and it’s heartening that the U.S. House is holding an oversight hearing. Unfortunately, the hearing won’t feature agency heads from any of those three cities or any other city that has been measurably harmed by these delays. It will feature a representative from the American Public Transportation Association, which represents agencies that must work with the USDOT, a representative from a road builders’ association, and the director of the Kansas City Streetcar Authority, which has not experienced any delays from this administration (yet).
While we’re hopeful that members of Congress will ask probing questions and hold USDOT accountable, the witnesses and their prepared testimony do not inspire confidence.
House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) speaking at a hearing.
Transportation for America urges the House of Representatives to turn up the heat on USDOT for failing to release funding for transit grants during an oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 16.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is holding a long-awaited oversight hearing on Tuesday, July 16 at 10:00 AM to hold the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) accountable for failing to spend transit funds that Congress already appropriated for deserving transit projects.
“The Trump administration is undermining Americans’ access to jobs and improved quality of life by failing to release approved funding for transit projects,” Beth Osborne, director of Transportation for America, said. “USDOT has slowed down the pipeline of projects dramatically and made the process so confusing and unclear that local communities could be discouraged from even applying with their new projects, even though Congress has repeatedly provided funds for this program. Communities and leaders on both sides of the aisle choose to invest in public transit because it makes sense. The federal government needs to do its job—release the funds in a transparent and timely manner.”
Since the Trump administration took office more than two years ago, Congress has appropriated approximately $3.8 billion to the popular transit Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, the main source of federal funding for building and expanding transit systems in cities of all sizes all over the country.
Congress has continued to hold up their part of the bargain, but USDOT has failed to do its job, awarding just one-third of that $3.8 billion to new transit projects, slowing the pipeline of transit projects down to a snail’s pace. By the middle of 2019—two and a half years into the Trump’s first term—the USDOT had approved and signed just five grant agreements for new, large, multi-year transit projects.
USDOT is still sitting on ~$2.4 billion that is to be obligated to transit projects. Communities are waiting; jobs and critical projects are on the line. Local communities are counting on the federal government to be a reliable partner and provide the funds they have been counting on. The funding for new or improved transit service has already been appropriated by Congress—USDOT just needs to do its job.
Transportation for America applauds Representative Peter DeFazio, chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for bringing this important issue to light. We hope that Committee members will join him in asking difficult questions during the hearing, such as:
Why does FTA seem to be unwilling to sign grant agreements for eligible transit projects?
Why isn’t FTA being more transparent and forthcoming about the status of projects publicly and with project sponsors. FTA no longer publishes the same summaries on their website.
Why does FTA seem to be aiming to confuse the public with the announcements of “funding allocations” which are not binding and don’t result in any actual money going to local agencies?
A deceptive announcement by USDOT two weeks ago resulted in mistaken headlines across the country giving credit to USDOT and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for “awarding” funding to a number of transit projects. A closer read reveals that USDOT didn’t actually distribute or award a single dime to advance new transit projects.
In a self-congratulatory press release on April 9, USDOT Secretary Elaine Chao touted the agency’s efforts to “strengthen our country’s transit infrastructure and improve mobility” and “announced a total of $1.36 billion in federal funding allocations to 16 new and existing transit projects.” [italics ours]
In reality, no dollars for new transit projects were awarded or obligated. No new grant agreements were signed to allow projects to proceed. No new shovel-ready transit projects got a check in the mail from FTA. Why is that? Because FTA is just announcing “funding allocations.”
A “funding allocation” is just fancy language for an internal plan to award money…eventually
Here’s a way to understand “funding allocations.” Let’s say you’re planning to buy a new roof for your house. To prepare, you “allocate” some money to yourself by moving it from your savings account into your checking account so that when the time comes, you can cut a roofer a check. But you still haven’t actually hired a roofer, written them a check, and you certainly haven’t started replacing your roof yet. Should the roofer you haven’t yet hired be celebrating?
In other words, USDOT put out a press release that’s mostly about them moving some numbers around on a spreadsheet and posting it on their website. Congrats? It’s an extraordinary display of verbal gymnastics by USDOT to make it appear that they’re doing much more to fund transit than they actually are—notably released just the day before Secretary Chao testified before the House Appropriations Committee about USDOT’s budget.
And they are succeeding at misleading the public— look no further than the resulting media coverage thus far.
Want to know what’s actually happening with federal transit funding? See Stuck in the Station >>
But this press release has—perhaps inadvertently—also helped illuminate some troubling developments from an agency that has become much less transparent under the Trump administration. Here are five things we found:
1) USDOT wildly overstates how much money they’ve spent
The press release says, “with this announcement, FTA has advanced funding for 22 new [transit Capital Investment Grant] projects throughout the nation under this administration since January 20, 2017, totaling approximately $5.06 billion in funding commitments.”
In fact, FTA has only actually spent a fraction of that $5.06 billion, and if you define advancing funding as actually awarding (i.e., spending) it, FTA has only advanced 10 new projects with money from 2017 or later, far short of the 22 as they claim.
They take credit for providing more than $3.3 billion to 13 ongoing projects (including the canceled Wave streetcar in Ft. Lauderdale, more on that later), three of which are multi-year projects. Though FTA is legally required to continue funding such multi-year projects under binding “full funding grant agreements,” those transit projects have not yet received the full amount. And FTA is also counting more than $1.7 billion in funding for nine projects that they have not actually signed agreements to fund or advance.
2) USDOT is claiming progress by allocating more FY 2018 funding to two projects that already received 2018 funding
At first glance this sounds like good news: Two large-scale projects with grant agreements that were signed during the Obama administration will get an extra dose of money to perhaps speed them along. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project in San Carlos, CA and the Red and Purple Modernization Project in Chicago, IL are scheduled to receive an extra $100 million dollars each on top of the $100 million FTA had previously allocated to each project this year. That’s $200 million each for the 2018 fiscal year.
This is highly unusual, and it could also be a way for USDOT to do an end-around of requirements from Congress. FTA usually allocates no more than $100 million to a single project in a given year. The fact that FTA is doubling up on 2018 dollars is most interesting in light of new requirements that Congress imposed requiring USDOT to spend at least 80 percent of their FY 2018 funding by the end of this calendar year. Stuck in the Station now tracks USDOT progress towards that benchmark.
Double dipping in 2018 funds to expedite funding for existing projects allows USDOT to come closer to meeting Congress’ requirements without actually funding any new transit projects.
3) No new projects are being funded
The major development at first glance is that FTA is “allocating” money to five new transit projects. But none of these projects were actually approved or awarded money, even though local media fell for FTA’s misdirection. These five projects will join four other projects that FTA announced “allocations” for months ago. None of these nine “allocated” projects have a funding agreement in place yet, nor are we aware of FTA notifying Congress of their intent to sign any grant agreements (which is legally required).
4) USDOT wants credit for allocating money to a canceled project
The Wave streetcar in Fort Lauderdale is an unfortunate story. It was set to receive $60.66 million from USDOT in October of 2017 but local politics intervened at the last second and torpedoed the project. The streetcar was canceled and no federal money was spent. But FTA still claims credit for allocating that $60.66 million to the now defunct project and counts The Wave as one of the 13 projects they’ve advanced.
5) Minneapolis is left in limbo, and Los Angeles is still awaiting a final guarantee of funding
Late last year, FTA made news by sending what’s known as a letter of no prejudice to both Los Angeles and Minneapolis for their Purple Line and Green Line extensions, respectively. Such letters don’t guarantee future funding but they are generally seen as an implicit approval giving localities permission to begin work on a project with their own money.
Los Angeles’ Purple Line extension is included in the list of nine future projects that FTA anticipates funding (but still hasn’t yet). But Minneapolis’ Green Line extension is notably absent from this list, even though they have the same letter as LA. This could just be an egregious error on the part of the agency, but it’s more likely that FTA has no intention of signing a grant agreement with Minneapolis this year.
Delay, mislead, misdirect
FTA chose its words very carefully in this press release. They never say that they’re “funding” or “approving” new projects. They use the words “allocation” and “advancing” repeatedly. While all of this makes it sound like they’re spending lots of money and advancing lots of projects, that’s simply not true. Stuck in the Station tracks how much funding has been actually obligated to new transit projects, which projects are currently eligible and waiting for funding, and how close USDOT is to meeting congressional requirements for its 2018 funding.
USDOT is still working diligently to hinder predictable and stable federal funding for transit. We’ll keep holding them accountable. When USDOT finally moves beyond creating new spreadsheets and does advance new projects, we’ll be the first to commend them for it. But for now, it appears that USDOT is more interested in looking like it’s doing its job than actually doing its job.
