...even so, I was asked to post the initial response to this week's question on the National Journal Transportation Experts' Blog. The question asks how the innovative TIGER program could inform federal transportation policy reform.
]]>Unfortunately, as I noted in my response to the National Journal question, an environmental rating system would only tell us what we already know: that our transportation system remains unsustainable.
Climate and energy aren’t the only environmental concerns with transportation, but they are a good place to start. Transportation was responsible for 27% of total US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2008. This makes transportation the nation’s second largest end-use emissions source—larger than any other nation’s economy-wide emissions, with the exception of China.
Over the past two decades, transportation has also been the nation’s fastest growing GHG source, responsible for 47% of the net increase in emissions between 1990 and 2007. (Transportation also accounts for close to 70% of US oil consumption, but that’s for an energy security post.)
Fortunately, we can choose a different course. Today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released a major new study on transportation, energy, and climate change. The Secretary, on his blog, cited a few of the top line findings of the report. To start with, the report confirmed what many of us already knew:
The ingenuity of transportation planners and engineers has produced a vast network of transportation infrastructure and services to support the mobility and economic vitality of the Nation. However, our historic approach to transportation and land use has created an energy-intensive system dependent on carbon-based fuels and automobiles.
On the other hand, the report was optimistic about the future:
[H]ybrid vehicles could reduce emissions 26 – 54% for 2030 and beyond, and more direct and efficient airline operations could reduce aviation emissions 10% by 2025. Livability initiatives also play a role, with improved public transportation, land use strategies, and greater opportunities for walking and biking bringing reductions of 5 to 17% by 2030.
NRDC is equally optimistic when it comes to transforming transportation so that it is truly sustainable, while continuing to support America's prosperity. We can achieve this if Congress passes a new vision for transportation policy that considers the climate and energy impacts of our transportation plans and investments in a meaningful way, informing what we build and where we build it.
A new transportation program that achieves this is our best hope for making sure that our limited transportation funds are spent in the best interest of both local areas and the nation at large, at once supporting both prosperity and sustainability.
]]>
...even so, I was asked to post the initial response to this week's question on the National Journal Transportation Experts' Blog. The question asks how the innovative TIGER program could inform federal transportation policy reform.
]]>Altogether, 51 projects in 41 states and the District of Columbia received grants under TIGER ranging from just $3 million to over $100 million. The resulting projects will change how residents that live in each these areas use transportation, making their communities more livable, sustainable, enjoyable, and prosperous. Here are just a few:
> Las Vegas Sahara Avenue Bus Rapid Transit
Bus-only lanes, off-board fare collection, and intelligent transportation technology will improve reliability and speed of rapid bus service, benefits both auto and transit passengers
> Indianapolis Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
A public/private funded 8-mile urban bike/pedestrian network in the heart of downtown Indianapolis, connecting commercial and business districts with civic and public spaces
> Crescent Corridor Intermodal Freight Rail Project
Intermodal stations along this major freight corridor project, combining water, rail, and highway, will add significant new freight capacity from the Southeast to the Mid-Atlantic
> Kansas City Transit Corridors & Green Impact Zone Project
Major transit corridors investments the Green Impact Zone, which seeks to jump-start economic recovery in a distressed area by enhancing transit and pedestrian access to regional economic opportunities
TIGER shows that there are hundreds of innovative transportation investment opportunities across the country that can put Americans to work and improve local economies while cutting oil use and global warming pollution at the same time. However, a few more nuanced points jump out as well.
First, these projects will create jobs. Like other transportation investments in ARRA, infrastructure projects put people to work immediately in planning, engineering, and construction. Cleaner projects such as public transportation, intermodal, and rail investments tend to generate more jobs per dollar than highway projects. They also have a positive economic impact up the supply chain by driving demand for components and materials.
Second, the mix of projects on the list is a divergence from the formula funding of traditional transportation programs. Current law sends about 80 cents of every transportation dollar to roads and highways, and less than 20 cents to transit. Bike and pedestrian projects get about a penny. (Ports and passenger/freight rail aren’t funded much at all in the federal transportation program.)
The TIGER project funds break out to approximately:
This balanced approach to transportation investment more closely represents what Americans want. A recent poll by Transportation for America and the National Association of REALTORS found that Americans think government transportation investments neglect public transit and rail, which they also prefer to accommodate growth, ease congestion, and enhance communities. A previous poll (page 18) by Transportation for America found that given $100, Americans would spend $41 on public transit, $37 on roads, and $22 on bike paths and sidewalks.
Third, the projects submitted were oriented to support national priorities, which included economic recovery, transportation mobility/access, energy security, environmental sustainability, and community livability. The decision-making process that evaluated each proposal was transparent and well documented, and I am sure that the paper trail will be analyzed in coming weeks. But a clear, transparent project evaluation process aligned with progress toward national objectives can help to weed out pork-barrel projects and bridges to nowhere that serve no one but parochial interests.
Finally, what is most striking is most of that these projects are unlikely to ever have been funded through our current federal transportation program. While this legislation was most recently reauthorized in 2005, its last major rewrite of was in 1991 – nearly two decades ago. While our transportation challenges have changed with the times, the program has not. As a result, this 20-year-old policy fails to encourage the innovation we see in TIGER projects, and often penalizes efficiency and discourages new ideas these projects entail.
The list of successful TIGER applications clearly shows the need to reform outmoded transportation laws. Such high-quality transportation projects should be the rule, rather than the exception. National transportation policy threatens our future when the most innovative, efficient, and solution-oriented transportation investments can’t receive funding. TIGER helps address the failures of the current transportation program, but it is only a stop-gap.
The whole program must be rethought and overhauled to be similarly balanced, innovative, performance-driven, and outcome-oriented. TIGER demonstrates how this is a national opportunity. Passing a reformed federal transportation bill would create jobs, now and for years to come. It would facilitate commerce and economic growth. It would cut oil use, saving families money and enhancing our energy independence. It would reduce air, water, and global warming pollution.
It’s true that new revenue would be needed to make the required investments - $1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed. But with such a great return, perhaps taxpayers would be willing to make the investment if the transportation program included clear project criteria that were aligned with national priorities, clear processes that were based on performance, and clear outcomes that measurable improved our nation. That is to say, if it looked more like TIGER.
Related entries: In October, I posted about how the TIGER applications demonstrated a demand for something differend than the current transportation program.
]]>The Department of Transportation didn't see much movement in either direction, however, getting a small bump from $77 billion to $78.8 billion. In fact, the president's budget makes it clear that the transportation numbers included are only "placeholders" that demonstrate the need for the federal transportation program to be "fundamentally reformed" to "deliver transportation investments based on greater use of analysis and consideration of program performance."
In the mean time, Obama's budget calls for an extension of SAFETEA-LU through March of 2011, and offers baseline funding for all of the current transportation programs, including:
So on the surface, not much of a new vision, which is surprising considering the bold steps toward sustainable transportation that Obama took last week with his unprecedented investment in high speed rail.
Diving a little deeper, however, there are some notable shifts in the administration's DOT priorities that give us clues to exactly which path Obama is choosing.
A few transportation programs get slated for eliminations as well, the biggest of which is the Surface Transportation Priorities program, which has become little more than an earmarking slush fund over the years.
It is also worth noting that the administration has included a $100 billion placeholder for a "jobs bill" that will likely include significant transportation spending. However, if previous job-focused transportation investments are any guide, these funds are more likely to support the status quo than particularly sustainable projects.
Individually, none of these policy moves are surprising. Obama has supported versions of most of them at one point or another. But taken together, we can begin to see the outline of the administrations transportation vision a little more clearly.
For a reform advocate, this approach is worth getting excited about; my only quibble is that I wish we could get to it before March of next year...
]]>Today, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced a big move toward putting transit on a more level playing field in federal transportation funding decisions, while encouraging communities to work to maximize the "livability" benefits of transit investments. This would be a significant change in federal transit policy, helping many communities around the U.S. to initiate new transit projects, while improving the way that these projects are planned, designed, and built, with an eye toward environmental benefits.
For years, sustainable transportation advocates have highlighted how public transit is put at a distinct disadvantage in federal transportation funding decisions. Public transit projects receive only 50 cents on the dollar in federal matching funds, compared to 80 cents of federal money for highway projects.
Adding insult to injury, proposals for public transportation projects must also clear a series of high bureaucratic hurdles. Among the most vexing is a "cost-effectiveness" thresh hold that is used as the primary consideration in making project funding decisions. No similar standards - or many standards at all, beyond safety, really - exists for road and highway proposals.
Cost-effectiveness basically works like this. The reduction time savings for transit users that would result from the proposed project are divided into its cost. Only those projects that show significant time savings move forward. While such time savings and congestion relief are certainly important considerations in transit decisions, they are only a small piece of the puzzle.
The many other benefits transit investments bring to local communities are all but ignored. I helped to write a report on these "co-benefits" with the Center for Clean Air Policy last year. The case studies presented very clearly illustrate the real benefits that accrue to communities that choose to invest in public transit.
Sec. LaHood's announcement formally begins the process of figuring out how to count these benefits in a fair way, and incorporating them into funding decisions. This means that transit proposals will no longer seek to arbitrarily reduce travel times (often by limiting intermediate stations or choosing less-than-ideal routes that limit other benefits) or cut costs (by eliminating important design features that can better integrate a project into that community or make it more accessible and convenient for passengers) just to improve its chances of receiving federal support.
Rather, communities can design projects to maximize environmental benefits, convenience to riders, and local economic development potential to increase the chances of federal support. The ultimate outcome will be better transit projects that serve communities and riders more effectively while enhancing the local economic, social, and environmental co-benefits.
]]>"...McDonnell's plan avoided focusing exclusively on big-ticket, photo op-generating transportation projects. High-efficiency, lower-dollar ventures - such as smart intersections that adjust light times based on traffic flows, and opening spare shoulder capacity or reversing lanes during peak periods - arguably do more to alleviate traffic in urban areas than does new capacity."
This statement is a reaction to a problematic trend in infrastructure policy. The tendency in federal policy is to focus on large, multi-year projects; the whole concept of contract authority budgeting is geared toward this. It's true that many transportation projects are necessarily large in scope.
However, oftentimes these projects - and the accompanying photo-ops that Peters refers to - are prioritized at the expense of the smaller projects, which are potentially more valuable in terms of improving the efficiency and performance of the overall transportation system.
Optimizing (not to mention maintaining) what we already have should take some precedence over the addition of new capacity. In fact, considering our maintenance deficit, there is a strong case to be made that adding capacity should be a last resort a.k.a Fix-it First.
There might be exceptions to this argument, such as when a particular mode is underdeveloped or lacking altogether. However, our federal transportation policymakers might do well to think smaller when drafting our nation's new transportation program.
]]>As much as we must pass transportation legislation that focuses on energy and climate change, we must also pass climate and energy legislation that focuses on transportation. And the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs bill does just that.
The transportation sector represents nearly two-thirds of US oil consumption, and a third of US carbon emissions, and the Clean Energy Jobs bill zeros in on this growing source of emissions.
The legislation begins by having EPA and DOT set national targets for reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector. It then sets up a framework under which states and large metropolitan regions would begin to plan for transportation emissions reductions, and monitor their progress over time. Setting targets and developing strategies to reach these targets will allow states and regions to integrate climate and energy concerns into their transportation plans in a way that is both flexible and prioritizes the most effective projects.
The bill would also assist states and regions by offering them a new set of tools, including state-of-the-art transportation and emissions models, standard methods for assessing transportation carbon, and improved and expanded data.
Perhaps more importantly, the bill would give states and regions access to new federal grants - totaling up to $1.5 billion each year - to assist them in developing and implementing low-carbon transportation plans. These grants represent direct investment in our communities that will create jobs, stimulate local economic development, and improve local transportation options, all while cutting emissions.
Along with other provisions that invest in more efficient clean cars and new sustainable transportation fuels, the Kerry-Boxer bill takes a big step forward on transportation. While the next big step must be taken in the federal transportation bill, Kerry-Boxer's passage will jumpstart a more efficient and affordable transportation network that will become the wheels of America's Clean Energy Economy.
]]>