Transit Policy News
Monday, June 25th, 2012
The current transportation authorization expires next Saturday, June 30. The original bill, which expired nearly 1,000 days ago, has already been renewed 9 times. In an effort to create a bill with majority support and to avoid the 10th renewal of the bill, the Senate created a bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). MAP-21 was passed with support from Democrats and Republicans from every region of the country, not an easy task to accomplish, but the House is preventing further advancement by pushing their radical agenda onto the Senate’s bill.
In an effort to speed up projects and cut any red tape, MAP-21 lays out reforms for project reviews and the delivery processes. These reforms still allow taxpayers the ability to play a role in projects that will influence their community and health. The House, however, has different ideas. They have proposed project streamlining, which eliminates the rights of local citizens and elected officials to be involved in shaping transportation projects.
MAP-21 consolidates small programs like Transportation Enhancement (TE) and Safe Routes to School into a single program that provides funding to local communities for projects to improve safety, revitalize communities, and improve the environment. This program allows decisions over local issues to be made locally, by people that know them best. The House, however, wants to prevent local input by eliminating these programs all together, which puts the safety of America’s roadways at risk.
In today’s economy when the unemployment rate is 8.2%, job creation is on the mind of every American. Some members of the House want to cut the funding measures for job creation laid out in MAP-21. This would reduce the projected 3 million jobs by an unthinkable 500,000, and shows the blatant disregard for Americans’ well-beings.
Members of the House are intent on changing the Senate’s bill, but their bill never made it to the floor for a vote, and it failed to dedicate any money to road and bridge repair. The Senate’s bill, however, increases funding for these repairs above even what the current law has allotted.
As if this was not enough, the House is pushing to add the Keystone XL pipeline project to the bill, a measure that will surely prevent its implementation. President Obama has previously stated that he will veto any bill with the Keystone XL pipeline project, so the proposed addition would serve only to cripple any attempt at passing a new transportation bill.
MAP-21 is the clearest path forward and offers the best chance at a bi-partisan supported bill. Without a committee consensus, the threat of shut down becomes increasingly possible. The continued failure to compromise and pass a bi-partisan supported bill puts the creation of millions of jobs and the safety of our roads, bridges, and transit systems in jeopardy.
I urge you to ask your Representatives to talk to members of the Transportation Conference Committee. Tell Conferees to stop trying to compromise the integrity of the Senate’s bi-partisan supported bill. Remind your members of Congress that the Conference Committee should be focusing on the job creation and long-term economic benefits for their constituents, rather than on their political careers and the upcoming election. And urge your Senators and Representatives to support MAP-21.
Posted in Advocacy, Going Places, National, Policy, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy | No Comments »
Thursday, May 24th, 2012
After a steady increase during the 1980s and 1990s, VMT, or vehicle miles traveled, have leveled out in the United States and are actually decreasing in the wake of the Great Recession. Even during the slow recovery period we’re now in, Americans are keeping their foot off the gas pedal.
Americans are holding on to their cars. There are more than 240 million passenger vehicles in operation nationwide. Only in 2008 were there more cars on the road in the United States. The average age of these vehicles in circulation has steadily increased from an 8.4 year average in 1995 to 10.8 in 2011.
It seems likely that people are holding on to their cars not necessarily because they want to, but because there’s no other way to get around. A 2010 poll found that the majority of adults in the United States say they have no choice but to drive as much as they do and most would like to spend less time in their cars. Transit may exist for many of these people, but the hassle of accessibility doesn’t translate into more ridership for many cities around the country.
A 2010 poll found that the majority of adults in the United States say they have no choice but to drive as much as they do and most would like to spend less time in their cars. Photo by Flickr User: freefotouk
Whether it’s the recession or a response to high gas prices or something else, people are driving less but holding on to their cars. People who care about cities, affordability, and the environment need to capitalize on this change in behavior by making it easier and obvious for people to keep their VMT low even when the economy gets stronger, gas prices drop, etc.
That means policies and funding for transit, biking, and car-sharing that reflects a fundamental shift in how we view and invest in transportation networks. We need policies that support infrastructure for multiple mobility options instead of policies that prioritize driving over everything else. If we want to offer a way for people to drive less long-term, dependable and convenient transportation options are a must.
This argument I’m making isn’t particularly novel to anyone outside of the Capitol. Cities and regions are getting it and moving forward with innovative ways to fund transit on their own. In at least 33 metropolitan regions around the country, large investments are being made in streetcars, light rail, metro rail, or commuter rail projects in 2012. I wrote about Los Angeles’ efforts not too long ago. In 2009, Oklahoma City voters approved MAPS3 program, which included $130 million worth of mass transit improvements in addition to other public works and redevelopment projects. The Research Triangle area has three counties and two metropolitan planning organizations working together on funding a dedicated transit system, with Durham County already approving a sales tax increase for its part. Here in Chicago, we expect our new Infrastructure Trust to be used to invest in transit upgrades and expansion.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and her Senate colleagues have developed a bipartisan bill - Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) - which would reauthorize the nation's surface transportation programs for the next two years. Photo credit: U.S. Senate Photo Studio
Congress desperately needs to get on board. Public transit is not partisan. Saving people money on getting to work and the grocery store is not partisan. But both Republicans and Democrats have failed for more than three years now to reach common ground on a multiyear transportation bill to replace the 2005-09 legislation. We are on the ninth short term extension, which will expire on June 30. Forty seven Members of Congress are meeting now to decide the fate of public transportation in our country. Such a critical issue deserves a thoughtful approach that articulates a transportation vision for the country for the next 50 years and beyond.
Posted in Advocacy, Going Places, National, Regional, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy, Transit Ridership | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 9th, 2012
Getting the public’s input on transportation issues is something that has defined my role in the transportation field for more than 30 years. Whether you’re selling sneakers or sushi, a vendor has to know what the customer wants to ensure people buy the product. Transit service isn’t much different. The customer—the transit rider—needs to weigh in and shape the product. What I have learned over the years is that residents who use our transportation systems are usually the best resources.
One resource is the Transportation for Communities site. Full disclosure: I sit on a federal committee that directs research on transportation issues and funded development of this site as a way to disseminate information to stakeholders, from the long-range transportation planner to the woman worried about service expansions for the commute route that gets her to work each day.
Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed.
A little overwhelming at first for the transportation neophyte, spend some time with the site and you’ll find guidance on how to insert yourself in a planning process. You’ll also get information about what the different types of transportation planning entail. Transportation for Communities is especially useful for people who work in transportation, since it shares best practices and case studies from across the country that may be of use in other communities.
Here in Chicago, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning has done a great job involving the public in GO TO 2040, which is the region’s long-term transportation plan. Now in the implementation phase, CMAP staff engage local businesses, officials, and citizens in every step of their projects. Involving stakeholders builds the political will to fund the programs which will enhance millions of lives.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning has done a great job involving the public in GO TO 2040, the region’s long-term transportation plan.
As a CTA board member and a member of many federal committees, I deal with large transportation projects on a daily basis, so I know first-hand of the extensive operation, building, maintenance, and extension costs that go into these developments. Big projects require a lot of time and a lot of coordination among agencies and officials. It’s easy to leave out the customers in the interest of time and efficiency.
It’s a partnership: transportation professionals can’t make an end run around the public, and the public can’t shirk their responsibility to pay attention and get involved.
Posted in Advocacy, Chicago, Going Places, Regional, Staff Blog, Transit Expansion, Transit Policy | No Comments »
Thursday, April 26th, 2012
Two years ago, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, transportation officials and stakeholders in Chicago joined together to outline a plan to improve residents’ quality of life and protect the environment by strengthening transportation infrastructure. Officials from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), Metra, Pace, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and The Illinois Tollway acknowledged that spending on transportation accounts for a significant portion of a household’s annual income and that efficient transportation will reduce this financial burden, generate job growth, and contribute to the long-term health of the environment.
The goals outlined in the 2010 accord will never come to fruition without consistent funding, however, and even Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s new Infrastructure Trust may be able to finance new projects, like transit, but we’ll still need a dedicated way to maintain and upgrade them down the road. So, this past Monday, April 23, I attended the Earth Day Transportation Summit to discuss financing options for regional transportation.
During breakout sessions, all attendees were asked to discuss a set of funding options and rate each according to soundness of public policy, ease of implementation, feasibility of enactment, and potential for growth. Based on those criteria, here are the ideas that were most popular:
- Indexing taxes to inflation was the revenue option that most people supported. Currently, the state motor fuel tax (MFT) is 19 cents per gallon for gasoline, a price that has remained unchanged since 1991. Raising the MFT to reflect inflation would result in a tax of 32 cents per gallon, almost double the current rate. Even a small raise in the MFT would generate a significant sum: according to CMAP’s GO TO 2040 plan, an increase by eight cents, with a subsequently applied inflation index, would generate $19.4-billion dollars in revenue by 2040.
- Congestion pricing received the second highest ranking among summit attendees. Under congestion pricing, drivers would be required to pay a toll when entering or leaving the city or designated zone (cordon pricing); to pay an increased toll during preset rush hours regardless of traffic (fixed pricing); or to pay fluctuating tolls based on real-time congestion. Commuters would have to then choose to spend more on transportation, find an alternate (non-toll) route, or (the optimum goal) utilize public transit. GO TO 2040 estimates that revenue from congestion pricing could generate up to $12 billion dollars by 2040.
Is congestion pricing the best way to fund transit? Photo by Joe Bergantine
- A surprise winner, in third place, was increasing parking fees. If parking fees are higher, drivers can weigh the costs of parking when they decide on travel options. If driving is the chosen mode, they are less likely to stay in one spot for extended periods of time, thus reducing street congestion caused by drivers looking endlessly for a parking spot. But, since street parking in Chicago is currently leased to Chicago Parking Meter LLC, this measure would primarily affect parking lots and suburbs where the RTA has the authority to raise fees in parking lots associated with malls, movie theaters, and private garages. Parking fees are easily implemented, however, and the idea garnered widespread support.
All of the methods we discussed for creating a dedicated transportation revenue stream are feasible. The biggest roadblock is a lack of political will from our leaders. My hope is that the new focus on how we pay for infrastructure—brought about by discussion of Chicago’s new Infrastructure Trust—will keep these issues on the table and embolden our political leaders to start making difficult but important decisions about funding our transportation system for the long run.
Posted in Chicago, Going Places, Regional, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy | No Comments »
Thursday, March 29th, 2012
Chicago is a world class city that needs a world class transit system. Unfortunately, we don’t have funds that even come close to covering the $15 billion in work needed to keep our transit system working properly and expanding service. That will remain the case for the foreseeable future unless the state gets its fiscal issues straightened out.
It’s difficult to know where to begin with such huge problems like that. The Chicago region’s Riders for Better Transit has proposed legislation that would tie the gas tax to inflation. We like that idea. We also think our elected officials need to get serious about dealing with our antiquated sales tax and pension systems.
It’s been nearly four months since Chicagoans received a quarter-cent sales tax cut. Have you noticed? Probably not. That’s largely because even with the cut, Chicago residents still pay among the highest sales tax in the country—a dubious distinction, one that we would rather not own.
The combined state, county, and city of Chicago sales tax is 9.5 percent on a narrow range of goods and a few services. Given Illinois’ manufacturing and industrial past, taxing goods made sense back then. But our taxing structure hasn’t kept up with the evolution of our economy. Our heavy industrial past has been replaced by a knowledge and service economy. The tax base needs to evolve as well.
A shift from a narrow range of taxable goods to a broader range of goods and services could result in a lower overall tax rate. We’d lose the unsavory distinction of having the highest sales tax while gaining more public funding from more sources.
And what could we do with additional tax receipts from a broader base? We could create a dedicated revenue stream to invest in capital projects that would fill existing transit gaps. We’d replace a dubious distinction with one we’d be proud to tout: the most extensive transit system in the country.
And then pensions. It is no secret that a reformed pension system is long overdue. Our pensions are funded at only 38 percent, with liabilities exceeding assets. No wonder the rating agencies lowered the state’s bond rating in December 2011. To make matters worse, Moody’s Investors Service lowered the rating again in January, making Illinois’ credit rating the lowest in the country. Standard and Poor’s strongly warned the state of another possible downgrade and put Illinois on negative watch.
Having the worst-funded state pension system in the country is another dubious distinction we don’t need.
Pension reform is a vexing public policy issue that our state’s political leadership must tackle if we are to live up to the contract we made to thousands of Illinois employees over several generations. I’m encouraged to see that Gov. Pat Quinn has committed to reform Illinois’ pension system, starting with funding teacher pensions. He has a myriad of solutions, including raising Illinois higher education spending by 12 percent to help fund the pensions of state university employees and shifting at least some of the responsibility of funding teacher pensions to the schools, universities, and school districts.
I am hopeful that we’ll make headway on this in 2012.
Pension reform, like sales tax changes, requires our elected representatives to make difficult choices. Choices that taxpayers will support them for if only they make it clear how taxpayers will benefit.
Bond ratings and sales tax rates help determine how expensive it is to borrow funds for needed capital projects and to assure bond purchasers that there is enough dedicated revenue to pay back those bonds.
Unmet transit capital needs in northeastern Illinois exceed $15 billion. A Triple A+ bond rating and a dedicated revenue stream would go a long way towards closing the transit funding gap and giving our world class city the world class transit system it deserves.
Sales tax and pensions—it’s time for our elected representatives to take action.
Posted in Chicago, Going Places, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy | No Comments »
Wednesday, March 14th, 2012
By now everyone knows about the US House of Representatives proposing legislation that would jeopardize funding of mass transit. Outrage from the public forced members to reconsider putting transit funding in peril.
It’s a perfect demonstration that when the public speaks up, Congress listens.
The House leadership couldn’t muster enough votes to pass the bill before they left town for a recess. While members are back in their home districts, attention has turned to the Senate’s transportation bill, known as MAP 21, which was voted on today.
While I wouldn’t have written this bill, MAP 21, as amended in recent votes, has a number of good provisions. For instance, the bill:
- Keeps guaranteed federal transit funding intact.
- Allows transit operators to use grant funds for operations and maintenance (O&M) during economic downturns for up to three years. Operators with less than 100 buses can use these funds for O&M permanently.
- Establishes a $20 million transit-oriented development planning program for the next two years.
- Extends for one year the $240 pre-tax transit benefit at the same level as parking benefits.
- Provides states the option of spending a small amount (4 percent) of highway funding for freight rail projects—a first.
- Expands the popular transportation loan program, known as TIFIA, from $122 million to $1 billion.
- Includes funding eligibility for Complete Streets projects.
- Requires performance criteria for key highway and transit programs.
- Continues direct allocation of funds to metropolitan areas with populations over 200,000. Percentage share has been reduced, but total dollars increased by a bigger pot and by providing Metros with funds from two other programs.
- Increases funds dedicated to road repair from 15.6 percent to 27 percent, and it allows states to spend more on repairs rather than expanding or building new roads.
- Requires asset management—making better use of limited resources—for the first time.
As this bill moves to the House, we will have to work hard to keep funding for the National Highway System, which tends to support large road systems, from getting any bigger. Under the Senate bill, the funding grew from 32 percent to 52 percent of the total highway program. We will also have to fight for transit on every front and for our urban communities to receive their fair share of funding.
We are quickly approaching a March 31 end to the current transportation bill, which could grind transportation construction to a halt and curtail transit services if we don’t pass something in its place. It is imperative that we pass a strong, transportation bill that benefits all modes of transportation.
I urge you to do two things:
1—Send your senators an email thanking them for supporting the key provisions listed above and urging them to maintain that support as it moves forward.
2—Send House Speaker John Boehner an email urging him to stop the partisanship when he gets back to DC and get serious about working with Republicans and Democrats alike to bring forward the newly passed bipartisan Senate bill.
Posted in Going Places, National, Staff Blog, Transit Funding, Transit Policy | No Comments »
