I just found this amazing map of the U.S. showing roadway congestion and, in some cities, noting the costs of congestion....

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200803/win-large.gif

 

The opinion piece with it is good, too. Also:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/meltdown-geography

 

Which discusses using the economic crisis to reshape how we do business as a nation (including transit oriented development).

 

 

 

Act

Please vote! The current tally is 36% for, 64% against.

 

More money for public transit?

http://www.parade.com/news/intelligence-report/archive/more-money-for-public-transit.html

 

Actually some of the comments are interesting, including a recent post which claims that 80 cents of every dollar spent on road transportation leaves the local economy whereas 80 cents of every dollar spent on public transit goes to the local economy.

 

And why do we call it "public transit" anyway? Isn't our Federally (and regionally), subsidized system of roadways "public transit"? After all, the public owns the infrastructure, the only difference is who is piloting the vehicle.

 

That poll question is almost guaranteed to produce a negative result. 

 

"Should America divert some funding from highways and bridges to invest in public transit?"

 

The way it's worded, a vote for public transit is a vote for bridges collapsing.  Why does transit funding need to come out of bridge repair, which would seem to be as necessary for transit as it is for cars?  The accompanying article lets both sides speak, but the poll question appears to have been supplied by one of the parties-- the American Highway Users Alliance.  The question assumes their argument to be true.  Objective poll questions are difficult to write, but this is not even an honest attempt at it.

I just found this amazing map of the U.S. showing roadway congestion and, in some cities, noting the costs of congestion....

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200803/win-large.gif

 

Is that map showing almost the entire 275 loop as "exceeding capacity"?

^Everything except I-275 west of I-74 and I-75/71.

So, how 'bout that upcoming $17 billion bailout of the highway fund?

 

http://www.pitandquarry.com/pitandquarry/News+Watch/Boxer-Highway-fund-headed-for-deficit/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/603762

 

Via Twitter, Mark Miller (chairman of the We Demand A Vote petition effort) suggested that is due to us "leaching" money from the fund to pay for "parasitic" rail projects.  Nope, it's not because of the decline in vehicle miles traveled, or the fact that gas tax hasn't increased since 1993 while inflation has.  Just blame rail.

 

@TAEstell Funny how Highway Fund is short same $ that mass transit has leached away over the years. It's self-funding but for rail parasite.

The most recent year data is available is 2007. 

 

That year expenditure from the Highway Fund on Mass Transit were 4,205,687,000. Roads Expenditures were 34,979,234,000.  Assuming these numbers are roughly the same in 2008-2010, if you took the entirety of the Mass Transit expenditures and devoted them to Roads, you would still have:

 

2008: 3,800,000,000 shortfall

2009: 2,800,000,000 shortfall

2010: 4,800,000,000 shortfall

 

Bear in mind this does not include the cost of municipalities lighting, policing, paving, or plowing these roads.

 

data from:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/fe210.cfm

The Federal Highway Trust Fund went bankrupt in 2009 and wasn't running a deficit until that point. It was scheduled to go bankrupt in 2011 originally, but higher fuel prices led to less driving and the projected bankruptcy date was pushed forward.

 

The remaining money that was allocated through the Fund is now approperiated through House and Senate bills -- what we would label as "pork."

 

For transit, it's been running a deficit for years and almost entirely relies upon appropriations.

Actually the Highway Fund of the Highway Trust fund had been running a deficit since about 2000-2001

Actually, the fund was already bailed out once, for $8 billion, in 2008.

 

And we're just talking about the Federal Highway fund, not each state's fund.  For example, the state of Texas says that their gas taxes cover less than half the actual cost of roads, with many roads being even more money-draining.

 

Applying this methodology, revealed that no road pays for itself in gas taxes and fees. For example, in Houston, the 15 miles of SH 99 from I-10 to US 290 will cost $1 billion to build and maintain over its lifetime, while only generating $162 million in gas taxes. That gives a tax gap ratio of .16, which means that the real gas tax rate people would need to pay on this segment of road to completely pay for it would be $2.22 per gallon.

If we're going to start asking these questions we'd also need to ask what the dollar figure is for fuel that was for non-automotive use that the users never applied for refunds.

Declining revenues probably have something to do with this:

If we're going to start asking these questions we'd also need to ask what the dollar figure is for fuel that was for non-automotive use that the users never applied for refunds.

 

How much gas or diesel is sold for non-automotive uses but still taxed as such?  Dyed diesel used for agriculture/heating/etc. is not taxed in the first place.  What other uses are there that wouldn't have to pay Highway tax?

Anyone that goes up to the corner pump to fill a boat, jetski, lawnmower, weedeater, power washer, home generator, and so on.  The number is certainly small, but if we were to go down this line of transit bleeding the fund I think we'd have to go about determining how much additional revenue was put in.  Again, not saying it would offset the transit spending, or that the spending on transit from the fund is even a problem.

 

Ohh, and lets not forget the guy that tosses gasoline onto the bonfire to get it started  :laugh:

You have a point.  But my main point is that it's a complete myth that roads pay for themselves--even if you figure in the small amount of unnecessary tax paid in or the portion that goes to mass transit.

 

The quote from the state of Texas above said that gas taxes would have to be $2.22 per gallon for that particular stretch of road to pay for itself.  That's probably a more extreme example, but let's go with their figure from this quote:

 

This is just one example' date=' but there is not one road in Texas that pays for itself based on the tax system of today. [b']Some roads pay for about half their true cost, but most roads we have analyzed pay for considerably less.[/b]

http://www.theatlantic.com:80/doc/200907/ideas-trains

 

Ideas: Fixing the World July/August 2009 Atlantic

by Bruce Selcraig

 

Train Detroit

 

Fans of high-speed rail seem to be in two camps about the Obama administration’s plan to give states a record $8 billion in federal stimulus money to develop fast trains. After eight years of willful train-neglect under President Bush, most are grateful for any resources they can get. But some predict the relative chump change—AIG and Citibank got 55 times as much, roughly $460 billion—will be diluted across so many fledgling rail projects that no state will end up with a top-of-the-line system that could provide thousands of new jobs and an envy-inducing model for America. Even completing one desirable high-speed project, the 800-mile north-south California route, is likely to cost $45 billion.

 

 

..........

APTA Legislative Alert

 

June 18, 2009

 

U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Releases $500 billion Authorization Proposal - “A Blueprint for Investment and Reform” Includes $99.8 billion for Transit and $50 billion for High Speed Rail!

 

Administration Proposes alternate 18 Month SAFETEAU-LU Extension and Highway Trust Fund Fix-

 

Congress Approves Supplemental Appropriations Act - FY 2010 Appropriations Legislation Advancing-

 

 

Today, the bipartisan leaders of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN), Ranking Member John Mica (R-FL), Highway and Transit Subcommittee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and Ranking Member John Duncan (D-TN), released their proposal for the next surface transportation authorization bill, to replace SAFETEA-LU.  The summary of the proposal, entitled “A Blueprint for Investment and Reform,” describes in detail the committees’ plans for the subsequent legislation, which will be introduced as the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 (STAA).

 

To view the Executive summary, click here <http://www.mmsend1.com/ls.cfm?r=53278430&sid=6800674&m=758039&u=APTA&s=http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint%20Executive%20Summary.pdf> .

To view the detailed proposal, click here <http://www.mmsend1.com/ls.cfm?r=53278430&sid=6800675&m=758039&u=APTA&s=http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/Surface%20Transportation%20Blueprint.pdf> .

 

APTA commends the committee for its thoughtful approach to address our nation’s transportation needs and is extremely pleased that its proposal incorporates several proposals advanced in APTA’s “Recommendations on Federal Public Transportation Law."

 

As proposed, STAA recommends a $450 billion investment in surface transportation programs, including $99.8 billion for public transportation programs administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)– a more than 90 percent increase over SAFETEA-LU levels.  The bill recommends an additional $50 million to support President Obama’s vision for the creation of a High Speed Rail network in the United States.

 

However, as expected, the proposal does not address where increased revenues will come from to finance the program.  This portion of the legislation must be developed by the House Committee on Ways & Means, which is expected to act at a later date.

 

ACTION ALERT

 

The Bi-partisan Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, introduced by the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provides a 90% increase in transit funding and makes many other improvements in surface transportation law recommended by APTA.  APTA urges you to contact your Members of Congress and urge them to express strong support for the bill.  With the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is expected to mark up the bill on Wednesday, June 24, it is critical that you contact your Representatives immediately to express your support.

 

• Please contact your Members of Congress by phone or email immediately.  Tell them that you strongly support this bill, which dramatically increases investment in public transportation and urge them to support it as well.  Ask that they to express their support to Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee this week.

 

     

 

The legislation proposes a significant consolidation of surface transportation programs and introduces performance standards as a key feature of the federal program.  Additional goals of STAA include bringing transportation assets to a “state-of-good repair,” improving project delivery, increasing safety, reducing traffic congestion, reducing green house gas emissions and improving air quality.  The committee also proposes creating a National Infrastructure Bank to fund large-scale transportation projects, as well as the creation of two multi-modal programs that aim to reduce congestion in major metropolitan areas and fund projects of national significance.

 

Funding Proposals

 

According to the committee’s blueprint, of the $450 billion proposed for surface transportation programs, $337.4 billion is proposed for the highway program, $99.8 billion is proposed for public transportation, and $12.6 billion is proposed for highway and motor carrier safety.  It is important to note that STAA also proposes to fund two multi-modal programs ($50 billion for a “Metropolitan Mobility and Access Program and $25 billion for “Projects of National Significance”) from the same $450 billion pot.  At this time, the proposal does not indicate from which programs STAA will draw funds to finance these two programs.  Therefore, the actual level of funding dedicated to each mode will vary based on the amount of funds that will be drawn for the multi-modal accounts, and eventually how much goes back into the programs once the funds are distributed.

 

As for the highway and transit programs, details were not made available regarding the distribution of funds among the various programs.  For highway programs, despite consolidation efforts, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) remain largely intact as states and local governments will continue to be able to flex these funds for transit projects at the local level.  Changes, however, are proposed to increase sub-allocations to local governments from these accounts, giving local governments a larger stake in the project decision–making process, which could lead to more funds for transit projects.

 

For the transit program, STAA proposes to increase the ratio of federal funds that come from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).  Under SAFETEA-LU, approximately 17 percent of the federal transit program was funded from the General Fund, with the remainder coming from the HTF.  Under STAA, the General Fund share would drop to 12.3 percent ($12.2 billion).  This is could be good news for transit, as a smaller portion of funding would be subjected to funding reductions within the annual appropriations process.

 

Transit Program Structure

 

The blueprint also indicates that STAA will propose a significant consolidation of transit programs, distributing funds under six major program headings.  This is consistent with the overall theme of simplifying the federal program to create efficiency to help speed project delivery and to introduce performance measures.  Elements of all of the previous programs, including eligible activities, can be found under the new headings.  The new programs are:

 

1) New Starts and Small Starts Program

STAA proposes a greatly simplified New Starts and Small Starts program that will speed project delivery by “eliminating a variety of programmatic steps and requiring program reforms.”  In addition, the proposal aims to “equalize the treatment of proposed transit projects and elevate the importance of the benefits that will occur in the community once the project is built.”  STAA will prohibit the use of the FTA’s current cost-effectiveness index” (CEI), and replace it with a ratings process that comparably weighs economic development, energy savings, increased mobility and congestion relief.

 

2) Fixed Guideway Modernization Program

STAA proposes to simplify the existing fixed-guideway modernization program by eliminating the complex 7-tiered fund distribution formula and replaces it with a single formula based on documented maintenance needs.  Communities with a population of fewer than 200,000 will be eligible to participate in the program and recipients will be held accountable for complying with performance measures that emphasize maintaining a “state-of-good repair” for assets.

 

3) Urban and Rural Formula Programs

STAA largely maintains the current urbanized area and rural area formula programs, but institutes new performance measures that hold recipients accountable for meeting certain performance targets, such as improved conditions of transit systems, replacement of aged and rolling stock, increased ridership, etc.  For small urban areas and rural areas, the funding formula will be modified to award increased funding to areas that provide more transit services.

 

4) Coordinated Access and Mobility Program (CAMP)

The new proposal would combine the Job Access and Reverse Commute, New Freedom Initiative and Elderly and Disabled Program, into a single initiative in a manner that closely mirrors APTA’s proposal for the programs.  The new consolidated program would distribute funds via a formula that takes into account low-income, elderly and disabled populations.  The CAMP program would distribute 60 percent of funds to designated recipients in large UZAs, 20 percent to small UZAs and 20 percent to rural areas, under a single application.  Any of the activities under the three previous programs would be eligible for funding under the new program.  The CAMP program would institute performance measures to ensure that the needs of each target population are being met, and then set minimum allocations for targeted activities if these measures are not complied with.

 

5) Intermodal and Energy Efficient Transit Facilities Program

STAA creates a new program that would combine elements of the Intermodal Facilities Program under SAFETEA-LU and the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction Grants (TIGGER) program created under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) earlier this year.  Discretionary grants under this program will be made available to transit agencies to build intermodal facilities that connect two or more transportation modes, or facilities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

6) Transit in the Parks Program

STAA will propose to streamline and increase funding amounts for the Transit in the Parks program, which provides grants to increase transit and reduce congestion in and around national parks.

 

 

Planning Provisions

 

STAA proposes linking the transportation planning process with national goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish national emission reduction goals for surface transportation in consultation with the U.S. Department of Transportation. States and metropolitan regions would then be required to develop their own emission reduction targets that support the EPA-established national goal.  Most importantly, state and metropolitan regions would also be required to incorporate strategies to meet their emission reduction targets within their transportation plans.  Given the significant emission reductions from transit services, public transportation projects would be a key element of state and regional strategies to reduce emissions, but the extent to which state and local planning and funding decisions would be affected cannot be determined until further details of STAA's proposed climate requirements are known.

 

 

Other Programs

 

Although not mentioned in the blueprint document, committee staff has indicated that STAA will contain other programs or provisions of interest to APTA.

 

First, although the Bus and Bus Facilities program is eliminated in its current form, committee staff have indicated it will address the replacement of rolling stock through the Urban Area Formula Program, and that funding for at least some facilities will be made available through the Intermodal and Energy Efficient Transit Facilities Program.  Second, committee staff has also indicated the final product could include some sort of discretionary bus program.

 

Furthermore, committee staff has indicated that STAA will include a section that addresses workforce development issues, containing elements of the H.R. 2497, the Transportation Job Corps Act of 2009, sponsored by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and endorsed by APTA.  H.R. 2497 authorizes several different grant programs and establishes a National Workforce Development Counsel, along with Regional Workforce Development boards, to address workforce development issues in the industry.  The legislation is also expected to contain a title continuing research programs within the FTA.

 

Finally, STAA will contain a provision to provide new operating assistance to transit systems by making a portion of formula funds available for operating purposes.  Eligibility would be tied to incentives to ensure state and local operating funds are maintained and/or increased.

 

More detailed information will be provided for these programs as it becomes available.

 

High Speed Rail

 

STAA proposes making $50 billion in General Fund revenues available to support the development of a high speed rail network in the United States.  These funds will be available for planning activities and construction in federally designated high speed rail corridors, as well as for a research program on high speed rail technologies.  High speed rail will also be eligible for funding through the National Infrastructure Bank.

 

Legislation Schedule/Outlook

 

The Transportation & Infrastructure Committee has indicated that it intends to formally introduce the STAA legislation within the next few days and has tentatively scheduled a mark-up for the bill in the Highways and Transit Subcommittee for Wednesday, June 24.  Chairman Oberstar has indicated that he intends to consider the legislation in full committee in July.  However, his ability to move the bill forward in the House will depend on the Ways & Means Committee’s timing on the development of a financing title.  Further complicating matters, the Obama Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of the current surface transportation authorization legislation (see below.)

 

Administration Proposes an Immediate Reauthorization Extension

 

As the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee works to move forward with its legislative proposal, yesterday, the White House made a major announcement regarding its own proposal for the transportation authorization bill.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Highway Trust Fund will become insolvent prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2009.  Latest reports, however, indicate insolvency could occur as early as August.  To prevent the looming shortfall, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced on Wednesday the Administration’s proposal to enact an immediate 18-month highway reauthorization extension that would extend current programs and replenish the Highway Trust Fund.  Repeating the Administration’s opposition to a gas tax increase during a recession, it is expected the shortfall fix will again come from the General Fund.

 

The Administration has also gone a step further, proposing several substantive policy reforms to accompany the extension, such as including cost-benefit analysis when deciding which projects to fund, providing greater investment in metropolitan areas, and fostering the idea of livable communities.

 

In a meeting with House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar, Secretary LaHood outlined the Administration’s proposal and urged Congress to act swiftly to prevent states from running the risk of losing access to these critical funds when Congress recesses in August.

 

Congressional reaction to the proposed extension was mixed, with the House and Senate offering vastly different reactions.  House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Oberstar has stated he is adamantly opposed to an extension in any form.  Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer, however, expressed support for an extension, indicating it would provide more time to craft a comprehensive bill that provides “stable and reliable” sources of funding.  Further details on the Administration’s proposal are pending.

 

Proposal to Provide Transit Operating Assistance Approved by Congress

 

On Friday, June 12, House-Senate conferees filed the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009.  Included in the Supplemental spending bill is a provision that would allow transit agencies to use up to 10 percent of their American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds to cover operating costs of “equipment and facilities for use in public transportation.”  The provision would also allow agencies to amend previously submitted applications in order to redirect ARRA funds toward operating purposes.  This provision was added in the Senate-passed version of the legislation, and ultimately was retained in the conference agreement.

 

Earlier this week, the House passed the Conference Report by a vote of 226 to 202.  Late this afternoon, the Senate completed consideration of the Conference report, passing it by a vote of 91-5.  It now heads to the President, who is expected to sign the measure into law shortly.

 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees Reduce Transit Security Funding

 

Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate have acted on the Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.  The House Appropriations Committee last week approved a bill that significantly reduces funding for transit security grants.  As reported out of the committee, the bill provides $250 million for Rail and Transit Security Grant Programs.  This amount is $150 million below the FY2009 appropriated level (excluding the ARRA funding of $150 million for the program), and well below the $900 million authorized by the 9/11 Commission Act.  The committee report cites ARRA funds and their late grant guidance as the rationale for the FY2010 funding level.  Most aspects of the committee report pertaining to public transportation security matters do appear supportive and generally positive.

 

The Senate initiated its consideration of the FY2010 DHS Appropriations bill on Wednesday of this week and was scheduled to complete the bill in full committee today, Thursday, June 18.  The Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee bill provided $356 million for Rail and Transit Security Grants, also below the FY2009 appropriation, but above the House Committee level.

 

Both the House and Senate are scheduled to consider the Homeland Security spending bill on their respective floors next week, ahead of the Independence Day recess.

House, Administration spar over transport funding renewal 

Railwayage.com

 

A potential dispute between the Obama Administration and House leaders could affect the timing of up to $450 billion in surface transportation funding sought for the next six fiscal years, beginning Oct. 1. SAFETEA-LU, which expires Sept. 30, provided $286.4 billion over a four-year period.

 

The administration seeks an 18-month extension of current surface transport funding, expressing doubts that a comprehensive six-year package can be achieved by the next fiscal year to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, expected to be depleted by August.

 

 

But Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (pictured at left), and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Calif.) argue that the House measure, unveiled Thursday, would expedite funds to states by simplifying regulatory procedures, while creating more accountability for how states spend their federal funds. DeFazio says the accountability would allow cities to mix and match road and transit projects, fostering modal coordination now lacking in federal transport policy.

 

House Republicans also seek to expedite the funding procedure. "Many important projects do not break ground for several years, tying up limited federal resources while project sponsors navigate the complicated maze that is the federal approval process," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said in a written statement.

 

Oberstar said the Department of Transportation would reduce its oversight of 108 different categories for federal funding to four major funding formula programs. As for rail specifics, the bill would set aside $50 billion for high speed rail purposes and $99.8 billion for transit.

 

http://www.railwayage.com//content/view/954/121/

From an overseas perspective (and I like the photo cutline "Let the train take the strain" at):

 

http://www.economist.com:80/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13871995

 

Transport spending

 

Delays ahead

Jun 18th 2009 | CHICAGO

From The Economist print edition

 

Ambitious plans for American transport run into reality

 

THE biggest shift in transport policy since the 1950s is due, supposedly, this summer. February’s stimulus package provided about $48 billion for transport, a pittance in comparison. As The Economist went to press on June 18th James Oberstar, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, was about to present a blueprint for a new transport bill. The old act expires on September 30th; the new one would span six years and authorise $500 billion in spending. More important, the money would be spent differently. The way Americans move and live might change too.

 

........

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE56069120090702?sp=true

 

Obama pushes ahead with transport fund rescue

Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:26pm EDT

By John Crawley and Lisa Lambert

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is pushing ahead with plans to shore up dwindling federal reserves for highway construction and establish a government-run bank to pay for future transportation projects.

 

Documents obtained by Reuters late on Wednesday detailed Transportation Department proposals for injecting $20 billion of general tax revenue into a federal trust for highway and transit infrastructure projects, and outlined Obama's longer-term plan for ensuring financial backing for new initiatives.

 

The administration foresees the Highway Trust Fund, which relies on

 

.......

States spend most stimulus money on highways

Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:28pm EDT

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. states are spending the bulk of transportation money from the federal economic stimulus plan on highway repairs and building new roads, putting only about 6 percent of the money into areas such as public transit, according to a report released on Monday.

 

Monday marks the 120-day "use it or lose it" deadline for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, when states must have committed at least 50 percent of the transportation funds they were allotted by the plan, which was enacted in February.

 

.......

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/gc04/idUSTRE55S5Q420090629

Public Transit Loses to Polluters in Climate Bill Subsidies

By Mike Lillis 7/8/09 6:00 AM

The Washington Independent

 

As Senate lawmakers launch new efforts to curb the nations greenhouse gas emissions, some key members have joined local transportation officials and environmentalists to ask a seemingly relevant question: Wheres the commitment to public transit?

 

House lawmakers last month passed a proposal designed to tackle climate change by creating a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse emissions and generate revenues for green initiatives. Yet while billions of dollars went to subsidize the transition of the major polluting industries into the new system only one percent was dedicated to public transportation projects.

 

.............

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/49985/public-transit-loses-to-polluters-in-climate-bill-subsidies

It would probably be easier to commit to public transit if we weren't simultaneously trying to save the auto industry by stimulating demand for cars.  Unfortunately I think we need to do both. 

An e-mail, FYI

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As part of the Business Members Government Affairs Committee Federal Lobby Initiatives we have asked APTA Business Members to utilize the NAPTA Online Action Center for meeting scheduling and online email legislative advocacy.  As members of APTA, you should have received our latest APTA Legislative Update and Action Alert asking for your help in contacting Congress in support of the Bipartisan House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009.

 

The Bi-partisan Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, introduced by the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee provides a 90% increase in transit funding and makes many other improvements in surface transportation law recommended by APTA.  APTA urges you to contact your Members of Congress and urge them to express strong support for the bill.  With the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit having marked up the bill, it is critical that you contact your Representatives immediately to express your support.

 

• Please contact your Members of Congress immediately.  Tell them that you strongly support this bill, which dramatically increases investment in public transportation and urge them to support it as well.  Ask that they express their support to Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

 

You may access our latest Legislative Update and Action Alert on the bill by clicking on this link - APTA Legislative Update and Action Alert.

 

The Alert allows you to use our Online Action Center to send your Member of Congress a direct email on this most important subject.  If you have not already signed up to be an online advocate through the NAPTA website, you will be prompted to register.  The process is quick, and we encourage you to do so.  If you have multiple business locations, we urge you to have key employees at those business sites sign up as online advocates and contact their Members of Congress as well.

 

Thank you for your participation in this important advocacy effort.

 

Brian M. Tynan

Sr. Legislative Representative

American Public Transportation Association

1666 K Street, NW

11th Floor

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 496-4897

[email protected]

http://business.theage.com.au/business/plan-now-for-the-flight-from-oil-20090713-divm.html

 

Plan now for the flight from oil

Elliot Fishman

July 14, 2009

 

DOWNWARD trends in car travel and surging public transport usage mark a turning point in history and a challenge for policymakers and politicians.

 

For the past 40 years or so, the game has been to plan for more car traffic and less public transport use.

 

Oil may have taken a back seat in the headlines amid the global economic downturn, but black gold is still the substance our economy depends on and it's about to get more expensive.

 

 

............

 

Elliot Fishman is director of the Institute for Sensible Transport.

www.sensibletransport.org.au

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/14/obama_paints_a_new_vision_for.html?wprss=44

 

Obama Paints a New Vision for Nation's Urban Policy

By Robin Shulman

July 14, 2009

 

Addressing a White House urban affairs summit on Monday, President Obama called for the "reinvention" of America's cities and metropolitan areas and vowed to spark a public conversation to create a "new, imaginative, bold vision" for urban policy.

 

The speech was Obama's first as president dedicated to urban issues, a subject he called "near and dear to my heart."

 

.........

But wait, there's more!

 

http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/actualite/dot-secretary-urges-communities-built-on-walking-public-701211

 

DOT Secretary Urges Communities Built On Walking, Public Transport

By Siobhan Hughes

Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

July 14, 2009

 

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Tuesday called for fighting global warming by developing communities that are closer to public transportation or within walking distance of goods and services.

 

"Our work will not be easy, but it offers great promise for improving the lives of all Americans and reducing our use of energy and greenhouse gas emissions," LaHood said in testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

 

 

.........

^^ WOW!!! Who ever thought the White House and USDOT would be saying things like "developing communities that are closer to public transportation or within walking distance of goods and services?"

 

And this:

 

"For too long, federal policy has actually encouraged sprawl and congestion and pollution, rather than quality public transportation and smart, sustainable development," said Obama.

 

A U.S. president speaking the truth and stating the obvious and actually talking about land-use policy and transit?!!! In my lifetime!??!!

 

Obama does a good job of saying the right things. Now let's see the federal government actually start doing the right things.

True. That's the real test. Still, I find it amazing that we have a president and a transportation secretary who are actually even SAYING these things. That in itself is a huge leap. Absolutely unprecedented.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/07/questioning_the_direction_of_t.html

 

Questioning the direction of transportation policy

by Lloyd Lindley, guest opinion

Friday July 17, 2009, 8:30 AM

 

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., are championing the $500 billion six-year Surface Transportation Act.

 

This financial commitment to our transportation system pales compared to the $2.2 trillion five-year expenditure necessary to raise the system's overall "D" rating (according to the American Society of Civil Engineers) to satisfactory levels.

 

While it's critical to pass this essential legislation to create jobs and improve roads, it will not address the long-term state and national challenges we face in transportation, air quality and oil resources.

 

So why would the United States continue to justify sinking billions of dollars into building cars and roads when we cannot fund the existing system or significantly reduce carbon emissions and lost time? We should be asking: Are we strategically building the right transportation future and are cars, green or not, the right mode of transportation for that future? Or more specifically, should the country more aggressively retool and pursue a national passenger rail system?

 

..........

 

Lloyd Lindley of Northeast Portland is an urban designer and a fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects.

Transforming cities/reducing traffic can happen faster than we think:

 

Check out the short video here:

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/video-pedestrian-friendly-new-york-city.php

THE DIG -- July 22nd, 2009

 

Rep. Oberstar on the transportation bill

 

 

In mid-June, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, on behalf of the Obama administration, offered a temporary finance plan that, if implemented, could put off legislation to overhaul federal highway and transportation programs. It would also delay a possible vote to raise the national gas tax past the 2010 congressional midterm elections. The proposal came just a day before Rep. Jim Oberstar (D., Minn), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, released an outline of the legislation - THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009 - aimed at reforming transportation nationally.

 

The current transportation authorization law is set to expire at the end of September. While only an extension is supported by the Administration and the majority of the Senate, Rep. Oberstars bill is gaining moment from members of the House Republicans and Democrats and special interest groups, including the Chamber of Commerce.

 

 

But, the new transportation legislation must be heard by the House Ways and Means Committee first and Healthcare reform, not transportation, is their mandate for the moment. Still, the Minnesotan politician is not backing down.

 

In April, before the House transportation bill was introduced, Rep. Oberstar talked with Blueprint America about the legislation:

 

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: What needs to happen with the national transportation system?

 

REP. JIM OBERSTAR: The end of the interstate era and the beginning of a new period of transit to give people in America something more than where the road goes, but where the people (want) to go.

 

 

..........

 

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/featured/the-dig-rep-oberstar-on-the-transportation-bill-and-reform/769/

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20090728_2158.php

 

TRANSPORTATION

Dems: $5B Highway Fix Set Through Sept.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

 

House Democratic leaders and the Obama administration have agreed to push through $5 billion this week to keep federal highway coffers solvent through September.

 

"Subject to a few refinements I've asked for, we've agreed on $5 billion," Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar said today after meeting Monday with Transportation Department officials.

 

.............

National Association of Railroad Passengers

900 Second St., N.E., Suite 308

Washington, DC 20002-3557

Telephone 202-408-8362

 

For Immediate Release (#09-08)

July 31, 2009

Contacts: Ross Capon, Sean Jeans-Gail

For immediate release

 

Washington D.C., July 31, 2009—Here is the statement of National Association of Railroad Passengers President and CEO Ross B. Capon on Fiscal 2010 federal passenger train funding prospects following Senate Appropriations Committee and House floor actions:

 

“Enactment of a passenger train reauthorization last October and the March unveiling of President Obama’s vision for modern passenger trains appeared to set a new course that would give Americans a convenient, safe, energy efficient and green transportation choice that promotes smarter development patterns more conducive to livable communities.

 

“Unfortunately, Congress seems headed towards funding levels that threaten continuation of existing service, while virtually ruling out improvement and expansion of service nationwide.

 

“The House and Senate – following the bad example set in the Administration’s budget – slashed the grant for national system operations $27 million below Amtrak’s request.

 

“US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, in May at the National Press Club, succinctly described the folly of inadequate operating grants for transit: ‘I think it’s a little bit silly to provide all of this money to transit districts to buy new buses if you can’t afford to have drivers and employees to use the equipment.’

 

“This same argument applies to intercity passenger trains.  But here, Congress is not cutting just operating funds, but capital as well.  Yesterday, the Senate slashed $381.4 million from Amtrak’s capital request.  Last week, the House slashed even more—a whopping $453 million–leaving Amtrak with a capital grant $10 million below this year’s level.  These actions imply providing only 60% to 66% of the capital Amtrak needs.  Since basic mechanical and engineering ‘state of good repair’ work will require $550 million, the Senate would provide less than $188 million (and the House less than $116 million) to buy the new equipment needed to replace Amtrak’s oldest cars and to support service expansion as well as investments required to comply with a reasonable interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Thus, it is important that the current direction get changed on the Senate floor or in a House-Senate conference.

 

“As to high-speed rail funds, the Senate committee provided $1.2 billion compared with the House’s $4 billion, and would prohibit the Federal Railroad Administration ‘from awarding grants until the agency has completed a national rail plan as required under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.’  As a result of the historic $8 billion for high-speed rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment act, 40 states submitted 272 applications for over $105 billion of high-speed rail projects. 

 

“Fully funding trains provides good, safe transportation choices and creates well-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced overseas.

 

“But, even though interest in passenger train development has never been higher and the President has set a new direction for transportation policy, what is actually happening is a piling up of more highway subsidies and a continuation of inadequate funding for Amtrak. 

 

“The House voted today to add $2 billion to support the “cash-for-clunkers” program that lets people trade in old cars for subsidized new ones.  Before initially enacting this program as part of the war supplemental, in one indication of how little Washington has changed, House-Senate conferees deleted a provision both bodies had approved which would have let clunker-disposers get public transit vouchers instead of credit for purchase of a new car.     

 

“Evidently citizens must shout still louder to Washington before federal funding will move clearly to rectify decades of neglect of rail and overemphasis on highways and aviation.  That change will be necessary to create a cleaner, safer, more-efficient transportation network.”

 

Our statement to a Senate Banking subcommittee outlining highway subsidies is linked from our home page at www.narprail.org or go straight to it at http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/senate_banking_statement/

More detail....

 

Congress slashes FY 2009 budget for Amtrak, passes two bills equaling $7 billion to subsidize auto travel

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/hotline

Let's summarize where we are right now on this issue:

 

-There was a lot of rhetoric since last fall about a sea change in Transportation policy and funding, but much of it has subsided

 

-Congress has been vectoring back toward highway-oriented funding formulas

 

-High-speed rail policy remains disorganized, with many regional systems vying for attention

 

-There is the framework for a national high-speed rail plan in place, sort of, but the vast majority of the corridors are marked as 70MPH...will this really compete with auto travel?

 

-Lastly, and this is something that doesn't get much attention: Most of the metros that have existing rail transit want more, and there is good public support for more; but most of the metros that don't have existing rail transit are having a really hard time lining up the funding.

 

There is clearly not a clarified national vision for what we want transit to do. I think rather than having a "transportation revolution" that pops up in the rhetoric, what we are actually in is a transportation learning process that will take many generations to work out. I say this becuase we are pushing up against really, really fundamental, almost existential, questions. Questions like: Can we grow our economy without consuming more land? Is occupying as much land as you want a civil right? Is mobility a civil right? If so, how much?

Let's recap:

 

In 2003, when the last six-year surface transportation funding law was reauthorized, Congress created the National Surface Transportation and Revenue Study Commission to study and recommend ways to address revenue shortfalls in the Highway Trust Fund predicted to hit by 2008 or 2009. The commission last year released its report (see: http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/), recommending that Congress increase the gas tax by 10 cents and diesel fuel tax 15 cents, but Congress has done nothing about it.

 

Due to declining driving, increased fuel efficiency of vehicles and rising road construction/materials costs, the Highway Trust Fund has gone bankrupt and has been bailed out once already for $8 billion.

 

Congress creates the Cash-for-Clunkers program to encourage more Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Encouraging Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles is a laudable program, but when the only way to pay for roads and public transportation is dependent on gasoline taxes and the federal gasoline tax hasn't been raised in 16 years (or replaced with a more revenue-adequate funding source), a collision with reality is unavoidable.

 

Rather than renew the 6-year federal surface transportation law, which is due to expire this year, Congress and the President prefer to postpone the renewal for 18 months and instead give the Highway Trust Fund another $7 billion bailout. The reason is that passing higher fuel taxes or other increased transportation revenue sources is politically unpopular -- President Obama and Congress want to hang on to their Democratic majority for another term.

 

By the time Congress gets around to making a serious, long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund, the amount of deferred maintenance on the transportation system is likely to be much worse, thereby requiring even higher gas taxes than what the commission originally proposed. I question whether Congress has the stomach for it.

^Politics infects everything, and I see it getting worse.  KJP:  A departed friend of ours who was active in the Ohio politics once told me:  "Unfortunately, winning elections is often more important [to politicians] than solving problems". 

 

The pace at which we are falling behind the rest of the industrialized world with respect to transportation seems to be accelerating, and few in Congress seem to care or understand what it really means for our global economic competitiveness. 

 

All the real leadership about where we should be going as a nation is coming from primarily local and state governments, but they don't have enough resources to fully follow through.    Often at the federal level, the proposals start out good, but by the time they go through the corporate lobbying and campaign contribution meat grinder, what comes out looks very different and results in far less effectiveness than what went in.  I'm amazed that anything at all ever gets done at the federal level anymore.

 

rant off...

Anyone who thinks they can relax with the election of a transit and rail-friendly administration in Washington is dead wrong. Civvik is right about Congress "vectoring back" and that means we have to go back to continually pushing them for more.

Six ideas for saving the Highway Trust Fund....

 

http://transportation.house.gov/News/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=971

Running the Numbers on High-Speed Trains

By Edward L. Glaeser

Edward L. Glaeser is an economics professor at Harvard.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/running-the-numbers-on-high-speed-trains/

 

Is President Obama’s vision of hyper-fast trains racing through America a sound transportation policy or a costly boondoggle? Last week, I began a four-part series on the costs and benefits of high-speed rail. The readers of last week’s post seemed particularly eager to get to traffic congestion and the environment, but space constraints compel me to push these off until next week. Today I will get mired in the sometimes dull arcana of rail costs and direct benefits to users.

 

I’m going to frame the discussion around an imaginary 240-mile link between Dallas and Houston, but the basic formula for direct costs and benefit is general:

 

.........

I must have missed the part where he factored in the capital cost of two airports and an air traffic control system.

^As discussed in many of the comments to the article and by the author's own admission, many benefits are left out of the "analysis."  The ommission of environmental benefits and congestion relief (both auto and air) make this analysis meaningless.  There are two articles upcoming, which I hope give a more well-rounded analysis.

The NEC is a horrible model in terms of usage, competitive fares and average speeds. Amtrak's fare structure in the NEC sucks, to put it bluntly. Why does Amtrak charge 30 cents per mile for coach seating on Acela when European and Asian high-speed trains charge up to one-half less? Perhaps if Amtrak charged a more reasonable fare they wouldn't be running tiny six-car Acela trains on the NEC, but 12-18 car high-speed trains (some of which are double-decker) like those in Europe.

 

Furthermore, Amtrak's usage in the Northeast Corridor is pretty low compared to a world-class rail line as in Europe or Asia. If you're spending $50 million per mile, you'd better be getting a 186-mph railway with an average operating speed of 120-150 mph -- not the 70-80 mph average speed Amtrak gets on the Northeast Corridor.

 

Or consider the UK's West Coast Main Line or the East Coast Main Line from London to Scotland, each of which carry 40 million to 50 million riders per year. That's four times the ridership of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor but with half the population of the NEC. Yet the two north-south mainlines in the UK offer 100 mph average speeds despite a top speed of just 125 mph. The point being, if Amtrak's NEC (or Texas' route, or California's or whoever's) offered high average speeds (not so much high top speeds) the ridership should be much better than the NEC's.

 

If a truly world-class high-speed rail service was offered in the US, I wouldn't expect the suburban-sprawl type land patterns to remain constant around train stations. Indeed I would expect densification, a restructuring of transit systems to serve the stations and pedestrian-friendly settings to become commonplace. Indeed this has happened with much slower-speed Amtrak services here in the U.S., namely in California, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere.

 

If these analyses are going to rely on the recently released GAO report, then I don't expect much of a well-rounded review. Indeed, I'm already hearing the highway contractors will be using the GAO report to come out against high-speed rail. I hope the more progressive contractors squash that fight -- after all the color of money they will get from building a rail project is the same color of money they've been getting from building roads. The only difference is that the pot of money for rail projects is growing while the pot of highway money is not.

 

We will probably discover the identity of the open-minded road contractors in the next 5-10 years. They will be the ones adding 21st-century capacity to our transportation system. The dinosaurs will be painting bridges or filling potholes on some jerkwater back road, and probably complaining the whole time about how they were left behind.

http://www.rtands.com/newsflash/us-rails-will-deteriorate-without-federal-funds.html

 

Aug. 6, 2009

'US rails will deteriorate without federal funds'

 

State transit officials told U.S. lawmakers on August 4 that without additional federal funds, rail systems nationwide will deteriorate further, the Dow Jones News Service reports. The transit executives called on lawmakers to provide federal funds for "significant capital investments," such as expanding rail systems, purchasing additional rail cars and upgrading power and maintenance facilities.

A subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing to assess how to better modernize U.S. rail systems and obtain financial resources to get the job done.

 

Transit executives from New Jersey, Washington, D.C., Chicago and Atlanta testified before the subcommittee, along with Peter Rogoff, administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.

 

 

.........

In reference to Glaeser's cost-benefit analysis, a lot of station land and infrastructure is already in place in many cities, especially northern ones, so you can't throw airport capital costs into the ring on that argument unless you know for sure that his $50 million a mile includes station construction.

 

My guess is that Obama has this concept that every trip length will fall into a nice niche, with the ideal scenario being that you drive your electric car to the other side of town, you take the train to the other side of your region, and that you hop on a plane to the other side of the country. The problem is, providing robust infrastructure for all three modes is super expensive even at European densities. Imagine what it would be for ours.

 

Couldn't we just trade highway infrastructure for rail? No, one of the big reasons being that cars go up hills steeper than trains, so you can't plop rail ROW into highway median, for example, in all but a handful of flat cities.

 

Long story short, America has already made its choice, and the choice is highways. You don't change it overnight because you have to capture the remaining benefit dollars from the highway investments that you made before you can go full-tilt into rail. If you try to jump the gun, you will bankrupt the country.

 

 

 

My guess is that Obama has this concept that every trip length will fall into a nice niche, with the ideal scenario being that you drive your electric car to the other side of town, you take the train to the other side of your region, and that you hop on a plane to the other side of the country. The problem is, providing robust infrastructure for all three modes is super expensive even at European densities. Imagine what it would be for ours.

 

***

 

Long story short, America has already made its choice, and the choice is highways. You don't change it overnight because you have to capture the remaining benefit dollars from the highway investments that you made before you can go full-tilt into rail. If you try to jump the gun, you will bankrupt the country.

 

I don't think I fully understand the point you are trying to make.  Are you saying that since Americans want roads we shouldn't spend the money to develop other modes of transportation?

 

Although I would like to see the country move to denser, carfree cities over the long term, I also agree that financially it can't and isn't going to happen overnight.  Moreover, most Americans never ever want to give up their cars or their big lots and isolated living patterns.  So we'll likely continue to bail out the car companies and move toward electric vehicles while clinging to the sprawl method of development for as long as we can. 

 

I would add, however, that we can't go on this way forever.  At some point it must end, and we should be encouraging a change before the change is required by circumstances beyond our control, such as super-high oil prices.  Sprawl will come to an end -- we'll either run out of space or energy first, not to mention all of the extra resources consumed to build (and maintain!) so many miles of roadway, sewer, water, electric, and communication lines so that more and more people can live isolated from one another in ever larger houses and manicured lawns. 

 

So when you say "America has already made it's choice" I hope you're not saying we should continue on this path until we reach a crisis point.  Yes, money will need to be spent to fix the inner belt bridge and maintain the roadways.  But we should stop building new roadway since we're already heading past the point of being able to maintain all of the roadways we have, and we need to build up the alternatives in advance. 

Remember, America made its choice in the 1920s by either living in dense, transit-oriented cities or on farms. If you read what car company executives were saying by the late 1920s, they were disappointed that new car sales had fallen off and that most car sales were used cars. The market had leveled off. Auto executives recognized, based on their own words, that growth in car sales wouldn't happen unless cities were redesigned around cars rather than walking and transit....

 

Studebaker President Paul Hoffman in 1939: "If we are to have full use of automobiles, cities must be remade. The greatest auto-mobile market today, the greatest untapped field of potential customers, is the large number of city people who refuse to own cars, or use the cars they have very little, because it's such a nuisance to take them out. We must dream of gashing our way ruthlessly through built-up sections of over-crowded cities."

 

GM's view of 1960 (in 1939) which actually has some density, but the narrator talks of separated land uses for "increased efficiency" er, more driving:

 

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74cO9X4NMb4&feature=related

 

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7dT2HId-c

 

And speaking of America's land use patterns as they relate to new high-speed rail lines... Consider the ramifications of this picture of a station on South Korea's new KTX 300km/h (186 mph) high-speed rail line. This rural area certainly has a great deal less density that most American cities or even their suburbs. But South Korea's goal is to create new cities along the KTX line, cities that are just as high-density as the endpoint cities of Seoul or Busan. So why not have a high-speed line linking Chicago with New York City (similar distance to the new line being built between Beijing and Shanghai):

 

 

A close-up view of a KTX station:

 

http://www.finance-commerce.com/article.cfm/2009/08/06/Congressman-Oberstar-White-House-ran-for-cover

 

August 5, 2009 3:50 PM CDT

Congressman Oberstar: White House ran for coverby Brian Johnson Staff Writer

 

Rep. Jim Oberstar isnt hiding his frustrations with the White House these days.

 

On Wednesday, the Minnesota Democrat aimed some pointed barbs at the Obama administration, which favors an 18-month extension to the current transportation spending bill as an alternative to a six-year, $500 billion package introduced by the Minnesota Democrat this summer.

 

The yes we can, change you can believe in White House ran for cover, Oberstar said during a presentation at the University of Minnesota. I am not going to sugarcoat. I thought the administration would like [this $500 billion plan], too. Instead, they ran for cover.

 

Oberstar, head of the House Transportation Committee, added that an 18-month delay in Washington is an enemy of progress.

 

............