These numbers, from the Office of Management and Budget, indicate that the Highway Account of the Highway Trust fund is in better fiscal shape than previously thought. So why are senators still chasing after $12 billion? Source: OMB

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and his Finance Committee have been looking high and low for a $12 billion patch to fund the transportation reauthorization bill that passed the Senate EPW Committee a few weeks ago. According to Politico’s transportation reporters, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch, has already rejected several of Baucus’s ideas.

But the question is not only, “How will we get the money?” It’s also, “How much money do we need?” The dollar amount the Senate is seeking could lavish more money than necessary on roads while leaving transit out in the cold.

The EPW Committee wants to hold transportation spending at current levels (plus inflation), which they estimate at $109 billion over two years. Receipts into the Highway Trust Fund (from gas taxes and other vehicle fees) aren’t expected to be sufficient to pay that bill. The Congressional Budget Office told the committee that the HTF is $12 billion short of the amount needed to fully fund the bill. That amount is destined just for highways, based on projections that the Mass Transit Account will be solvent through the end of 2013 – in fact, ending that year with a $1.5 billion balance.

But last month, the two top members of the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over transit, asked FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff for confirmation of those numbers [PDF]. Rogoff replied that he, in fact, found another set of numbers to be more accurate [PDF].

In August, the Office of Management and Budget completed a “Mid-Session Review” (MSR), using updated estimates. Rogoff explains the OMB’s findings:

Assuming baseline levels of FTA contract authority and obligation limitations, our latest MSR estimates are that the MTA will have a $2.4 billion cash balance (positive) at the end of fiscal year 2012, but a $1.9 billion cash shortfall (negative) at the end of fiscal year 2013. Larger cash shortfalls are also projected for fiscal years 2014 through 2017 assuming baseline funding levels…

The FTA recognizes that minimum levels of funding are needed in the MTA at any time of the year to avoid having insufficient funds to cover potential outlays. For the MTA this “prudent balance” level is $1 billion, so the MTA will need $2.9 billion ($1 billion prudent balance plus $1.9 billion cash shortfall) for fiscal year 2013 to maintain this level.

While it remains above this “prudent balance” level, it has sufficient cash to cover one month’s projected outlays. If the account balance were to drop below this level, the Department would begin its notification process to grantees because the account would be at risk of having insufficient funds to cover potential outlays.

The OMB also finds that the highway account will have a $3.9 billion shortfall at the end of 2013 [see above].

These numbers are a world away from the CBO estimates. The OMB shows more parity between highways’ needs and transit’s needs, while lowering the total funding hurdle by more than half.

I wondered if part of the enormous inflation of highway needs in the CBO report was the product of a larger need for a “prudent balance,” but an FHWA spokesperson told me they don’t have the discretion to control the balance the way FTA does. According to him, the FHWA doesn’t maintain a “prudent balance” at all.

So what’s the proper amount that the Senate needs to find to plug the hole in the bill? Neither estimate seeks to leave any money in the bank, but just to end the year 2013 at the break-even point. CBO says the magic number is $12 billion to end 2013 without bankrupting the HTF. OMB says it’s $1.9 billion for transit plus $3.9 billion for highways, equaling $5.8 billion, plus the $1 billion prudent balance the FTA wants to maintain, for a total of $6.8 billion.

But one Congressional aide told me the Banking Committee isn’t looking to lower the total, but rather add the $2.9 billion for transit on top of the $12 billion Finance is already looking for. After all, no one wants to appear to be taking anything away from highways.

That’s one way to do it. But using the most accurate set of numbers has to be the best policy, not to mention the one easiest for Finance to achieve — and for deficit hawks to approve.

The Highway Account has no divine right to $12 billion that may greatly exceed the actual deficit. There’s no need to overfund road-building at a time of extreme fiscal discipline. So why haven’t advocates of the Senate bill been trumpeting the results of the OMB report and its finding that the bill will cost far less than projected, giving the Finance Committee an easier job to do?

Proposed route for the Woodward Light Rail Corridor. Image: Detroit Free Press

The Federal Transit Administration convened the panel, which included current and former transit agency leaders from Salt lake City, Denver, Portland, Atlanta and Dallas. The meeting was to focus on the planned Woodward Avenue light rail project, which received a $25 million TIGER grant, to envision a “bright future” for Detroit transit. Bickering between private donors and public officials over the design of the rail line (curb-running versus center-running trains) and conflict between the primary transit providers in Detroit have created problems for the project, and were likely a reason the feds decided to step in with some assistance from above.

Of course, the leaders that came together to advise Detroit come from very different cities with their own sets of issues, but none with the complex set of challenges besetting Detroit: an unemployment rate triple the national average, the highest foreclosure rate in the country, more than a quarter of its property vacant, a 25 percent drop in population over the past decade, and most of the region’s jobs well outside the city limits, with no public transportation to get there. Can a city like Portland really be of any help?

“Given the current technical capacity, as well as the lack of experience, as well as the extraordinary needs in Detroit, we wanted to treat this project differently, and sort of attack the problems collectively, rather than just wait to see if the city can attack them themselves,” FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff told Streetsblog.

Dan Lijana, a spokesperson for Detroit Mayor Dave Bing, said that although Detroit’s transit system will undoubtedly look very different from the other cities’ systems, there were some concrete things they wanted to learn from others’ experience: how to space transit stops, how to design the routes, and, especially, how to foster economic development along the corridor.

“From the city’s perspective, the economic development tool that this brings is absolutely essential for the city,” Lijana said. “You have an increased level of investment and viability for the neighborhoods down Woodward. That is an absolute, significant benefit. And I think also there’s a recognition that there needs to be better connectivity, citywide and throughout the region.”

Detroit is one of five cities selected to be part of the Obama administration’s new Strong Cities, Strong Communities program, which aims to help build the capacity of local governments to “develop and execute their economic vision and strategies.” Detroit and Fresno are the only two receiving special attention from the FTA, according to Rogoff, with Detroit getting extra-special attention. The FTA had more people on the ground than usual in Detroit, helping guide city officials through the environmental impact review process in addition to the all-star panel.

Lijana said that Mayor Bing has worked hard to get more federal attention on Detroit, and that both Rogoff and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have taken a major interest in the city.

Indeed, Rogoff said, the need in Detroit is great. “They rank about ninth in the nation as far as the size of the metropolitan area and 107th in the volume of transit that they provide,” he said. “If one was to start with a clean slate and develop transit service of any size, you wouldn’t draw the DDOT route maps and the SMART route maps and the timetables the way they have them. They’ve made efforts to coordinate, but there’s a lot of room for improvement.”

(When I checked DDOT’s website for route maps to better understand Rogoff’s point, I didn’t find them. What I did find was a “News and Events” sidebar where the events were biweekly “Citywide Furlough Days” where the DDOT offices are closed.)

Rogoff said there are transit-dependent constituencies in Detroit who face hourlong waits, even during peak times. Those who work at off-hours, like hospital workers, are often the ones that suffer from service cuts the most, with their commute times stretching unimaginably because of poor service. Rogoff says his panel found obstacles to progress for Detroit’s transit system, like municipal taxation systems that bar local option sales taxes without a constitutional amendment. They’re looking for alternative ways to raise revenues.

“We need to collectively chart a path for a much better transit system that’s going to make greater Detroit a place where young vibrant professionals want to move to, rather than move away from,” said Rogoff.

A government shutdown could empty out the D.C. metro system. Photo: Examiner

Just a month ago, AASHTO sounded the warning that the transportation sector could lose up to $100 million a day in case of a shutdown. However, Congress’s extension of SAFETEA-LU through the end of the fiscal year (September 30) has put their minds at ease. Now, AASHTO spokesperson Tony Dorsey says spending for federal highway programs will continue unabated, despite a shutdown. “At this point,” Dorsey said, “we’re not anticipating any issues.” Still, he said, they’re hoping that “should there be a shutdown, it will be a very, very short one.”

But that’s not the whole story. According to a detailed DOT shutdown plan, the vast majority of the Federal Transit Administration would shut down, keeping only 54 out of 575 positions working. Already-awarded stimulus grants would continue to receive oversight and the Lower Manhattan Recovery Office would continue to function. The $270 million that the FTA normally remits to transit agencies every week would cease.

Jeff Rosenberg, government affairs director for the Amalgamated Transit Union, says the SAFETEA-LU extension only continues government’s authority to pay for transportation programs. But “if the FTA isn’t authorized to open the door,” he says, those payments will cease. That could be especially damaging for smaller metros that receive operating assistance, not just capital funds, from the feds. However, he’s hopeful that a potential shutdown would only last a couple of days and would just be “a blip on the screen.”

What else can you expect to happen if the government does shut down as of midnight tonight?

• At least 800,000 federal employees would be furloughed immediately. That would cause a massive drop in transit ridership, especially here in D.C., where Metro is predicting a five to 20 percent drop in case of a shutdown. Michael Perkins of Greater Greater Washington estimates that this would result in a loss for Metro of a quarter million dollars a day.
• Amtrak’s federal subsidies – up in the air for months now anyway as Congress debates whether to eliminate them, reduce them, or maintain them – will stop. However, Amtrak CEO Joe Boardman recently assured employees that the rail operator can keep going on ticket revenue alone in the short term.
• The Federal Highway Administration will stay open, with no positions furloughed, according to the DOT shutdown plan. The FHWA is funded with contract authority and has enough funds available to operate in that way for about a month.
• More than half of the Federal Railroad Administration’s workers would be furloughed.
• The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration will keep operating with a full staff.
• As a result of the colonial arrangement by which Congress controls D.C.’s city budget, some core D.C. city functions would grind to a halt. A new campaign to “take your trash to Boehner’s house” in case a shutdown stops garbage collection already has nearly 5,600 Facebook fans. (The city would resume trash collection after one week, when uncollected garbage constitutes “a danger to public health.”)
• D.C. Street sweeping, taxicab regulation, most road repairs, the DMV, and public libraries could also be suspended.
• D.C.’s metro system would keep running, and would even keep a rush hour schedule, but might reduce the number of cars.
• Circulator buses and Capital Bikeshare would also keep running.
• The Federal Housing Administration would stop guaranteeing new home loans. FHA loans account for 30% of the housing market.
• Most of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which issues auto recalls and makes grants to states for safety campaigns, would close, with about 65 percent of its employees furloughed.
• The air traffic control system would keep functioning.
• Long project delivery times and construction delays are already a major concern of Congress, and the House Transportation Committee has prioritized eliminating delays. Well, so much for that – the EPA would cease conducting environmental impact reviews in case of a shutdown, slowing the approval for construction projects.

We’re continuing to monitor developments, but at this point, we’re bracing for a shutdown. A few hours ago, Reid took to the Senate floor to declare that the “one issue remaining last night” was the GOP rider defunding women’s health services. Boehner’s office maintains that the issue is, as always, spending cuts. Both sides are hoping the public will blame the other party in case of a shutdown. Reid hopes people will be as “appalled,” “frustrated,” and “personally offended” as he is if the GOP is so dead-set against cancer screenings for women that they’ll shut down the government over it. The Republicans hope to portray the Democrats as being so unwilling to budge on just a few billion dollars that they’d even let U.S. troops overseas go without pay.

Whoever’s to blame, it looks like the rest of us may be forced to go without some government services for a while. The longest government shutdown in modern history – the Newt Gingrich episode – lasted 21 days, but there’s no telling whether this one will break that record.

Remember, even once Congress is able to come to some kind of agreement over the FY2011 budget – whenever that may be – there’s still the FY2012 budget to worry about.

New Jersey’s loss will be somebody else’s gain: $3 billion in Federal Transit Administration funding will shift from ARC to other projects. Already, elected officials are making their case to the feds. In a letter sent to U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood a few days ago, New York City Council transportation chair Jimmy Vacca said he’d be sad to see ARC go, but…

…if New Jersey is intent on abandoning this worthy project, it is imperative that the $3 billion in federal funds available be used to fund the many other vital transportation projects on queue in the New York region, such as the long overdue Second Avenue Subway, the 7 train extension, and the Long Island Rail Road East Side Access project. All are at risk of not being completed due to lack of funding.

…the MTA’s five-year, $26 billion capital program is currently funded only through the second year, with no guarantee that New York State will fund the remaining three years. This capital program funds station rehabilitations, new communication signals and tracks, and routine replacement of buses and subway cars… If the ARC Tunnel is canceled, then the Federal Government’s contribution should stay within the Greater New York Metropolitan Region and help stabilize the MTA’s finances.

It will probably be rather difficult to convince the FTA to put more money into the MTA capital program. The feds are already the primary funder of the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access, and this June FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff promised Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd that “not a single penny” more from the New Starts program would go toward the escalating costs of those mega-projects. New Starts is the same pot of money that would have funded ARC.

However, $3 billion is a lot of money — nearly a billion more dollars than LaHood’s DOT has dispensed in two rounds of TIGER grants. Surely some of it should go toward the MTA, which provides about a third of all transit trips in the United States. So indulge in the following scenario…

Say the FTA makes a proportional amount of the $3 billion available to New York. About a billion dollars would go toward the MTA. But if I were the feds, I’d make New York earn its share. No spoils from ARC without a new local revenue stream to plug that yawning, $9 billion gap in the capital program, which threatens to bury straphangers under an avalanche of MTA debt.

How about a billion dollar carrot to help Albany finally muster the guts to enact congestion pricing?

Congestion pricing was projected to translate into $4.5 billion in bonds for the capital program, before Democrats in the Assembly killed it in 2008. Add that revenue to $1 billion from the feds, and you’ll go a long way toward staving off a slow-motion disaster of continually rising fares and shrinking service.

Gov. Chris Christie is expected to kill the critical ARC transit tunnel project, reports say. Photo: Star-Ledger.

The largest federal transit investment in American history is on its deathbed, reports Andrea Bernstein at Transportation Nation. Three sources have told Bernstein that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is ready to pull the plug on the plan to double rail capacity under the Hudson River this week, though Christie denies his mind is made up.

We’ve already outlined just how important this project is to the future of New Jersey and how shortsighted this decision would be for the Christie administration, so with this devastating news, the only thing we can do is look forward.

First, the predictable stuff: If ARC dies, New Jersey will keep its $2.7 billion share of project funds, which Christie is expected to use to patch up the state’s Transportation Trust Fund for a couple of years so that he doesn’t have to raise the gas tax to pay for the state’s roads. The Port Authority will recoup its $3 billion, some of which will end up back in New Jersey and some in New York. The authority’s capital plan currently calls for no new pieces of infrastructure, so it’s possible this money will fund necessary repairs on existing bridges and tunnels.

The wildcard is where the Federal Transit Administration’s $3 billion winds up. When New York City activists defeated the Westway highway project 25 years ago, House Speaker Tip O’Neill managed to capture a large share of its funding for Boston’s Big Dig. The $350 million that US DOT offered New York to help implement congestion pricing in 2008 almost ended up paying for a Chicago BRT system, though Chicago ultimately balked as well.

Who will get the billions of dollars that Christie is on the verge of passing up? Place your bets — or vent your anger — in the comments.

SEPTA is forgoing new amenities to focus on making sure their trains don't end up like this one. Brownstoner

Last year, the Federal Transit Administration announced that the seven largest rail transit systems had a backlog of $50 billion in maintenance needs to bring them into a state of good repair. In June, the agency determined that nationwide, the backlog is nearly $78 billion.

Though these needed repair and maintenance projects may be less impressive to the public than major expansions, they are key to increasing ridership and decreasing costs.

Last week, FTA Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan told the North America Strategic Infrastructure Leadership Forum that the agency is linking good transit maintenance to its livability initiatives. Keeping systems in good repair, she said, is the foundation of safe, reliable rail service that can help draw new residents to vacated areas.

“When we’re looking at the opportunities for in-fill, particularly in our major urban areas, where we can take advantage of the infrastructure we already have, this is where State of Good Repair becomes a very key piece of a livability initiative,” McMillan said. “So it’s not just about building the new stuff into greenfield. It’s about investing and making transit a real value-added as part of these strategic re-investments in communities.”

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority boasts the oldest transit system in America, said Richard Davey, who heads up the MBTA. So maintenance is no small task for them. Ninety-nine percent of the MBTA’s five-year capital plan is for repair and maintenance, which is projected to decrease their debt burden.

Bringing existing infrastructure up to code isn’t always the most popular use of money, especially when agencies have to choose between maintenance and investments that riders perceive more easily. Jeffrey Knueppel of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) said his agency even takes heat for focusing on safety. “At times we are criticized for not expanding the system, and also at times for not doing the customer amenities projects that other agencies have done,” he said.

But he said prioritizing maintenance is by far the most efficient use of funds. Looking at SEPTA’s bridges, Knueppel said, “We have an opportunity now to rehabilitate most of them, rather than replace them. If we continue to defer spending on our bridges we’ll end up spending a lot more money later to replace these structures.”

So how to pay for it?

Several agencies, including the MBTA, SEPTA, and New Jersey Transit, are looking at their parking assets to augment existing income streams. They’re considering leasing or selling off some of their parking lots. In the Philadelphia suburbs, towns that find themselves short on nighttime parking want to enter into an agreement to use the SEPTA lots during the off-peak hours.

Meanwhile, the FTA is developing proposals on the issue and is beginning to train grantees on asset management, but access to money for repairs is still a difficult prospect for many transit systems.

Without ARC, these century-old tunnels will remain the only way for NJ Transit commuters to get to Manhattan. Photo: NJ Transit via Second Avenue Sagas

Two weekends ago, construction on New Jersey’s most important transit project was called to a temporary stop by Governor Chris Christie. He declared a thirty-day review period for the ARC tunnel project, which would build a new rail tunnel below the Hudson and double commuter rail capacity from New Jersey. Many worry the review is just a prelude to axing the $8.7 billion project altogether and using the money saved to patch up New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund for a couple of years.

Advocates are now mobilizing to save ARC. People who live, work, or attend school in New Jersey can send a letter to the Christie administration through the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s “We Need ARC” petition.

Currently, only a single pair of century-old tunnels carry New Jersey Transit trains into Penn Station, and with NJ Transit ridership more than quadrupling since the 1980s, those tunnels are at capacity. “Every two minutes, a train enters Midtown Manhattan from New Jersey,” said Juliette Michaelson of the Regional Plan Association. “That capacity cannot increase.”

Without a new tunnel, commuter rail in New Jersey simply cannot expand. If ARC is built, however, it would be expected to carry 100,000 more commuters into Midtown, more than doubling capacity. Estimates suggest 22,000 cars would be taken off the road as a result. “It’s a game-changer,” said Michaelson.

Christie’s decision to halt all work on the project for thirty days has put the project in grave peril.

Ostensibly, the reason for the construction delay is to investigate cost overruns. However, at a hearing of the State Assembly’s Transportation Committee this Monday, NJ Transit Executive Director Jim Weinstein admitted that the administration had discussed using the funds committed to ARC to patch up the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, which funds both transit and roads and is on pace to go bankrupt next year. That’s a sign that the delay isn’t for an audit, but, in the words of the New Jersey Star Ledger, “a trial balloon to test the reaction to killing the project.”

Map: Star Ledger

If Christie decides to sacrifice ARC to keep the TTF afloat, it might solve one political headache for him, but not for long. “Back of the envelope, we’re talking two years, three years tops,” estimated Zoe Baldwin, the New Jersey advocate for the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. “It’s political pain-avoidance.”

Michaelson agreed that ARC funds would only finance TTF for two or three years. “Can he keep his hands off the cookie jar of money that previous governors have set aside for ARC?” she asked.

Baldwin suggested that instead, Christie look at raising the state’s gas tax, which is the third-lowest in the country and hasn’t budged for 21 years. “We’ve raised all kinds of other fees and taxes, she said, but the gas tax and other transportation fees have been untouchable.” That’s led to a years-long crisis in transportation funding for the state.

If Christie decides to kill ARC, that could be it for the project for decades. Currently, the cost of the project is split three ways. The federal government is contributing $3 billion, its largest contribution ever to a transit project. The Port Authority is paying another $3 billion. New Jersey would commit the rest, currently estimated at $2.7 billion. “The chances of the stars aligning again the get all three entities to pony up, it’s unlikely,” said Baldwin. That same agreement, she added, means that Christie’s decision is likely to be all-or-nothing for ARC. A renegotiation of the terms would be difficult.

The fiscal irresponsibility of killing ARC for a one-time infusion of cash becomes clear once you dive deeper into the numbers. To begin with, the operating revenue ARC would bring in is projected to outweigh its operating costs. It would turn a profit, once it’s built.

Moreover, the economic impact of providing more access to New York City far outweighs the project’s price tag. An RPA study from July looked at recent rail expansions in New Jersey and found that ARC would raise New Jersey property values by a total of $18 billion. A projected $50 billion in wages would come back to the state from high-paying Manhattan, said Baldwin.

This influx of wealth would, of course, be taxed. A report by NJ Transit [PDF] estimated that in 2025, ARC would add almost $100 million in taxes a year to New Jersey’s balance sheet. On top of that, RPA estimated that ARC would generate $345 million a year in local property taxes.

The amount of economic activity generated for the state would be even higher. “The economic future of the state rests on being able to keep on getting more and more people who live in New Jersey working in Manhattan,” said Michaelson.

So what’s next for ARC? Ultimately, the decision is up to Christie, but there are a few things to watch for before he makes his move. Baldwin pointed to a move by the Democrat-controlled legislature to condition certain TTF approvals on a long-term plan for the fund from Christie. Baldwin said that the governor’s reaction to the legislature could give a better sense of where his mind is.

Michaelson said that a strong statement by New Jersey’s business community could change the political dynamic. “I’m looking for the business community to come out and say we need this tunnel,” she said. “I feel like their voice has been lost in the mix.”

Transit systems need billions of dollars to reach a state of good repair. Image: FTA

The National State of Good Repair Assessment Study is a follow-up to a similar report issued last year, which catalogued the needs of the country's seven largest rail systems. This year's look widens the lens to include small and medium sized transit operators, including rural systems, and buses as well as trains. 

America's bus system is in particularly bad condition, according to the FTA. Nine percent of all assets received the lowest rating, poor, and another 32 percent were deemed marginal. While rail is in a slightly better condition -- nine percent of assets are poor, but only 17 percent are marginal -- the costs of bringing rail to a state of good repair are far higher. It'll take $59.2 billion, plus an average of $8.2 billion annually, to keep the rail system well maintained. 

Last April, the Federal Transit Administration announced a competitive grant program to try and improve the quality of the nation's bus fleet. But though applications for the grants have totaled over $4.2 billion, the agency only has $775 million to disburse.

To put these numbers in context, the federal stimulus law provided $8.4 billion in transit aid.

Even the stimulus act's highway spending only contributed around $16 billion to road repairs (and another $9 billion for expanding road capacity). In other words, America's transit systems need an investment far bigger than the stimulus provided to highway repair, and fast. 

Until that happens, transit riders are going to be less comfortable, less safe, and less likely to keep riding transit. Here's Kaid Benfield of the Natural Resources Defense Council, giving the issue a human face this morning: 

I find myself using DC’s Metro less and less these days, in no small part because it just doesn’t work as consistently well as I need it to in order to meet my needs.  Although our Metrorail system has never been perfect, it has always been a marvel of architectural beauty and engineering achievement, and once was the envy of the nation for its cleanliness, comfort and efficiency. 

Sadly, that is no longer the case.  Today, access to the system is made difficult by broken escalators and elevators all over the system; service can be slow and unpredictable; cars are dirty and crowded; air conditioning systems sometimes provide mediocre cooling in DC's sweltering summer heat.

I used to take Metro all the time for commuting and frequently for other trips as well.  But, while I still use the system several times per week, frequently to shuttle around downtown for meetings, more often than not I now drive to work, shelling out $20 for parking each day and putting up with traffic hassles when I do.

Image: Cincinnati Enquirer

Also on the list is Boston's regional bike-share network, slated to receive $3 million to help build more than 500 public bicycle stations. The bike-share project made the cut because of its potential to expand the reach and accessibility of the bus and rail system. Boston's bike-share launch recently got pushed back to 2011, but at that scale, it would be, by far, the largest system in the country.

Here's a sample of the major projects that got a boost:

• Cincinnati will receive $25 million to help build a six-mile streetcar route, with an eye toward spurring mixed-use development downtown. The city planning commission recently took the enlightened step of reducing parking requirements along the future streetcar route.
  
• Chicago received support for a pair of rapid bus projects: $11 million for the Jeffery BRT corridor, which will improve service to major job center on a route with poor access to trains, and $25 million for a two-mile, east-west bus priority street serving several routes downtown.
  
• New York City's 34th Street busway got an $18 million grant. Streetsblog NYC readers have been following this project for a couple of years. NYCDOT recently announced its intention to make 34th Street the first physically separated busway in the city.
  
• One of the surprise winners was Fort Worth, which received about $25 million for a 2.5-mile one-way streetcar loop, intended to serve as the hub in a future network. Streetsblog Network member Fort Worthology called the grant "incredible and extremely positive news" for the larger streetcar project.
  

You can see the complete list of projects here.

The funds are being distributed through two competitive grant programs that LaHood unveiled last December. The "Urban Circulator" and "Bus and Bus Livability" programs are tied to the Obama administration's multi-agency livability initiative. The funding streams are separate from DOT's larger competitive grant program, known as TIGER.

In an announcement this morning, LaHood indirectly tied the transit grants to the ongoing catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. "This investment by the Obama Administration in our nation's communities will create jobs, boost economic development and recovery, and further reduce our dependence on oil," he said in a statement. Note: He said "oil," plain and simple. Not "foreign oil."

Advocates for reforming national transportation policy applauded the grant program, noting that demand for funding far outstripped supply. "As the grants show, communities across the country are clamoring to use transportation investments to boost their economy while making their communities better places to live and work," said James Corless, director of Transportation for America. "FTA did a great job in rounding up this money to put wheels on President Obama's livability initiative, but we think that more communities should be able to benefit from these sorts of programs. DOT needs to have more money for smart, accountable, competitive programs like this in the future."

FTA chief Peter Rogoff addressing cyclists at this morning's Bike to Work Day events. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The U.S. DOT sent several senior officials to this morning's capital-area bike events, using the day to finalize a new expansion of eligibility for federal funding of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure connected to transit.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) chief Peter Rogoff, who suited up for a morning ride into downtown D.C., told fellow cyclists that "the Obama Administration will keep supporting cycle-friendly policies because they help connect communities in ways that are beneficial to everyone at very little cost," according to a statement released by the U.S. DOT.

First proposed in November, the FTA's new policy for boosting federal bike-ped spending sets radius surrounding a transit station in which bike infrastructure projects would be eligible for aid at three miles. Pedestrian projects within a half-mile of transit stations would be eligible for federal assistance. The previous regulatory radius was 1,500 feet, in most cases.

Meanwhile, nine national cycling and pedestrian advocacy groups released a letter in advance of Bike to Work Day seeking extra clean transport funding from the new Senate climate bill. The groups studiously avoided the critical tone that the transit industry and state DOTs used on Wednesday to seek a greater share of the revenue from the climate measure; nonetheless, the bike-ped backers urged sponsors Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to lift their legislation's limit on transport spending.

The letter's signatories -- including America Bikes and the League of American Bicyclists -- began by lauding Kerry and Lieberman for requiring that any revenue from their bill's proposed new fuel fees be spent on emissions-cutting transport projects.

Noting that infrastructure investments from the bill's new fuel fees would operate under a ceiling of slightly more than $6 billion per year, the groups added:

While we appreciate that this level of funding is greater than prior climate bills, it still limits the ability of states, counties, cities and transit systems to invest in sustainable transportation. The market needs a stronger signal regarding the importance of shifting our transportation modes to low- and no-carbon alternatives.

The bike-ped advocates proposed an increase in climate revenue set aside for transportation that would be commensurate with the estimated U.S. emissions generated by the movement of people and goods -- about 30 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

New Orleans, above, is one of more than 65 cities seeking federal grants for its streetcar. (Photo: Times-Picayune)

Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee, Rogoff said the winners of the streetcar grants as well as a corresponding bus funding program would be named in June. The bus grants, totaling $150 million, were even more popular than the streetcar funding, with more than $2 billion worth of applications submitted to the FTA.

Rogoff, a veteran congressional aide before his nomination to the FTA, described the streetcar and bus programs as elements of the administration's broader plan to promote transit-oriented development and sustainable transportation under the "livable communities" aegis.

The FTA, he said, will keep pursuing "more integrated regional planning to guide state, metropolitan and local decisions that link land use, transportation and housing policy," with a special emphasis on making the most of increasingly scarce federal funds.

The stimulus law's $1.5 billion TIGER program (short for Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery) was even more oversubscribed than the streetcar or bus grants, with more than $57 billion in bids pouring in. The grants were so in-demand that several Republicans took political flak for supporting local applications after criticizing the stimulus law as a whole, and Democrats from states that came up short were not shy about airing their frustrations.

The significant demand for streetcar and bus funds, coming on the heels of TIGER's success, could bolster the U.S. DOT's case for more merit-based grant programs that disburse aid on the basis of environmental and economic metrics rather than state-based formulas. The White House already has signaled that it supports an expansion of the TIGER program beyond the $600 million in extra grants approved during last year's appropriations process.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (Photo: Getty Images)

"If we didn't have a lousy economy, a lot of these issues would bubble up more quickly," LaHood told transit planners who lamented the lack of progress on new federal legislation and the tough budget choices brought on by the recession.

"Part of the solution," LaHood added, "will be when the economy comes back" and the White House is more open to discussing tax increases as part of the financing mix for long-term transport funding.

But in the meantime, LaHood's remarks served as a friendly warning to the transit industry that, given the capital's current political reality, its $8.4 billion haul from the stimulus should be considered a victory.

One exchange in particular epitomized the state of play between the administration and transit agencies: When an APTA conference attendee from Grand Rapids, Michigan, asked the packed audience of local officials to raise their hands if they had raised fares or cut service during the past year, a sizable number of hands rose into the air. Minutes later, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff leapt up to ask how many officials would be cutting more or laying off more workers if not for the stimulus.

Even more hands went up in response to Rogoff's query.

"The big sticking point of all of this is money," LaHood said. "That money [to pay for a new federal bill] just doesn't exist right now."

Despite that grim news and the long line of transit planners who shared their fiscal woes with LaHood during a question-and-answer session, one opening emerged for the industry to make headway on its Washington agenda. The U.S. DOT chief signaled openness to expanding urban transit agencies' ability to use federal capital grants to cover operating costs.

That capital-to-operating flexibility now sits at 10 percent, a level set soon after the stimulus law's passage. "Maybe that's not the right percentage," LaHood said. "Maybe we need to work with Congress to allow you to do more when the economy is bad." He floated the idea of a "sliding scale" for federal operating aid that would vary based on economic growth.

On two other big-ticket federal transit issues, however, the federal outlook appeared hazy following LaHood's appearance.

Asked about the so-called "CLEAN TEA" plan to give transit a dedicated share of the revenue from climate change legislation, LaHood touted his work in the president's Green Cabinet before admitting, "I can't say [CLEAN TEA] has been part of our discussions. But it possibly could be in the future."

Another questioner brought up the stimulus law's provision increasing the monthly pre-tax transit benefit for commuters to $230 -- equalizing the tax-free funding for transit and parking -- which is set to expire at the end of 2010. LaHood replied that he had not the "slightest idea" of the issue's status, though Rogoff explained that the tax question is under the Treasury Department's purview.

"We intend to talk to our partners at Treasury" about the value of keeping the pre-tax transit benefit equal to that for employee parking, Rogoff said.

DOT commish Janette Sadik-Khan showed this slide while saying that her agency hopes to "play around with the right-of-way more" in future bus projects.

At the same time, Sadik-Khan promised that the current Select Bus Service configurations aren't the final word in BRT design for New York City. "In the future, we're hoping to play around with the right-of-way more," she said, switching to a slide of a physically separated bus lane.

Regarding Select Bus Service along First and Second Avenues, Sadik-Khan argued that the site wasn't appropriate for a move as bold as separated bus lanes. "Moving forward, we're going to experiment," she said, "but we're not going to experiment on 250 block faces on Manhattan's East Side." Apparently, New York will have to wait for world-class BRT.

One of the conference panelists revealed a possible route for a future BRT project. William Wheeler, the director of special project development and planning for the MTA, announced that "at some point in the future, I really hope we can look at Queens Boulevard" for a BRT route.

Any future BRT routes in New York City will likely have backing from the feds. Therese McMillan, the deputy administrator at the Federal Transit Administration, closed her remarks by saying that she was there "to offer [the FTA's] support in helping you with your next steps." FTA funding for Select Bus Service on Nostrand Avenue was announced earlier this month.

While New York has yet to commit to physically separated bus lanes, its rapid bus routes are more full-featured than those of other American transit systems, several of which had representatives speak at the conference. On the Metro Rapid service in Los Angeles, buses operate in mixed traffic and the stations don't have pre-boarding fare payment. The Washington DC region is only giving buses dedicated space at the approach to intersections, not along entire routes.

On quantity, however, these cities have NYC beat. Even without dedicated lanes or pre-boarding fares, Los Angeles's 27 rapid routes are moving 23 percent faster and drawing between 12 and 49 percent more riders than the routes they replaced. Washington has received funding for more than a dozen so-called priority bus routes. New York, in contrast, is planning to roll out five rapid bus routes by 2012.

The proposed Oakland Airport Connector train. Photo: BART via Streetsblog SF

Several Bay Area advocacy groups briefed the media on the civil-rights complaint they filed against the OAC, which the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) heeded last week in a letter [PDF] that threatened to yank $70 million in stimulus money from the project unless planners comply with federal equity rules.

Stuart Cohen, executive director of TransForm, said advocates' victorious bid to push Bay Area's transit planners to examine more cost-effective and equitable alternatives to the OAC would "have a ripple effect" as other cities re-examine how their transit plans would affect lower-income and minority riders.

The FTA's decision on the OAC, described as the first of its kind, "represents government at its best," PolicyLink president Angela Glover Blackwell told reporters, adding that by "us[ing] the power of purse to make transportation agencies accountable, government shows it can be consistent with its values."

So where else are civil rights complaints playing a role in local transportation decision-making?

In the Twin Cities of Minnesota, several community groups filed suit against planners of the Central Corridor light rail line to protest the choice of route, prompting local and federal officials to announce the addition of three new stops.

The move appears to be motivated as much by low-income residents' concerns about changing development in the area as it is by their fear of losing transit access. A corresponding lawsuit filed by the Minnesota groups charges that the Central Corridor “project is designed to result in the displacement of the existing population along the Central Corridor through gentrification," according to the Finance & Commerce newspaper.

Meanwhile, the town of Navassa, North Carolina, has filed a civil rights complaint of its own with the Federal Highway Administration seeking to expedite construction of a highway bypass through their town, alleging that the road project would bring needed jobs and economic benefits to local residents.

Back in California, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority and metropolitan area officials have a limited amount of time to respond to the FTA's letter before the $70 million must be reprogrammed to other projects.

Public Advocates staff attorney Guillermo Mayer, who helped work on the OAC complaint, said the money could be used to help close the operating budget gap for San Francisco's transit systems despite legal limits on the use of stimulus funding for transit operations.

"The short story is that it's flexible," Mayer said, citing the federal government's treatment of preventive maintenance as a capital expense rather than an operating one. "These funds can be used to maintain existing services."

LaHood made his announcement today at the Transportation Research Board conference. (Photo: AP)

The first move: LaHood's DOT will rescind a 2005 rule that elevated "cost-effectiveness" above all other criteria used to determine whether a local transit project can receive federal funds. Cost remains a factor in the "New Starts" process, but is no longer given more weight than factors such as congestion relief.

House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR), his top lieutenant, quickly issued a statement hailing the reversal of the Bush-era mandate, which is blamed for slowing down transit expansions in several major cities.

"Now we need increased investment dollars to follow this reform, so that we can move forward with transit projects that relieve congestion, reduce emissions, increase our energy independence, and promote more livable communities across the country,” Oberstar said in a statement.  “We must all continue to work together toward a long-term authorization bill that makes transit options available to more people."

The second of the Obama administration's moves: Environmental and economic benefits will become official factors in evaluating "New Starts" proposals. This change requires a rulemaking by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which typically includes a period of public comment, so will not take effect immediately.

In announcing this latter shift, LaHood and FTA chief Peter Rogoff emphasized the need to look at the community-building benefits of transit.

"To put it simply: We will take livability into account," LaHood said today. "This new approach will help us do a much better job aligning our priorities and values with our investments in transit projects that truly strengthen communities. We’ll finally be able to make the case for investing in popular streetcar projects and other transit systems that people want – and that our old ways of doing business didn’t value enough."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) weighed in with a statement connecting today's news to the White House's broader sustainable communities push:

Rescinding this Bush administration restriction will unleash funding for important transportation projects across the nation, jumpstarting local economies and creating good jobs.  This means quicker and better funding for streetcars, light rail, and bus projects that improve transportation, revive local economies, and reduce global warming pollution. After much hard work with the administration and my Congressional colleagues, this is an exciting outcome that will create better and more transportation opportunities.

Transportation for America weighed in on LaHood's announcement on its blog, deeming the changes a positive step but emphasizing that cities and towns are still competing for a limited pot of transit money.

"Even under the old narrow rules for winning approval, only a small percentage of the many applicants were receiving limited funding," T4A communications associate Stephen Lee Davis wrote.

The appropriate vehicle for making broad changes to the funding distribution between roads and transit, however, remains the six-year federal transportation bill -- which is stalled on the Hill for a number of reasons.

LaHood addressed the ongoing impasse over a new federal bill during his remarks today on the transit rules change, calling fresh six-year legislation a "critical piece of the puzzle."

"I recognize there’s a lot of capacity and demand for additional transportation investments across the country that neither the stimulus nor a new jobs bill can provide," he said. "We need to empower regional and local transportation authorities to invest in the kinds of projects that will spur economic growth, enhance livability, and preserve the qualities that make each area special."

To help advance those goals in the absence of concrete congressional action, the former GOP lawmaker vowed that U.S. DOT would "pursue more flexible partnerships with states, MPOs, transportation agencies, and local communities."

The BikeStation in Washington D.C., which provides parking and services for bicyclists who use transit. (Photo: U.S. DOT)

The FTA's new rules, released for public comment on Friday, replace the previous definition of the so-called "structural envelope" surrounding a transit station.

In the past, regulators had tended to use 1,500 feet as the distance which "most people can be expected to safely and conveniently walk to use the transit service." But the Obama administration, stating plainly that the current radius is "too short," has proposed expanding it to a half-mile for pedestrian improvements and three miles for bicycle projects.

In its explanation of the new proposal, the FTA wrote:

The most successful and useful public transportation systems have safe and convenient pedestrian access and provide comfortable waiting areas, all of which encourage greater use.

Distances beyond the walkshed of public transportation stops and stations may in fact be within the range of a short bicycle trip. Providing secure parking and other amenities for bicycles and cyclists at public transportation stops or stations can be less expensive than providing parking for automobiles.

The proposed regulation also codifies a U.S. DOT definition of "livability" that Streetsblog Capitol Hill took note of when it was first mentioned by Transportation Secretary LaHood: "If people don't want an automobile, they don't have to have one."

Public comments on the FTA's proposal can be filed here.

Thousands gathered to board the new light rail line in Charlotte, NC in 2007. Photo via Light Rail Now

It can take as long as 14 years for transit planners to secure a full-funding New Starts grant agreement (FFGA), the final stage required before starting construction. Yet when GAO auditors set out to break the process down by its stages (which are depicted in a comically complex chart after the jump) they found the FTA could only provide complete information for nine out of 40 New Starts projects approved since 1997.

"We were unable to obtain complete and reliable project milestone data from FTA," GAO auditors wrote. An attempt to confirm records for a random sample of 10 New Starts projects found the information to be "unreliable and, in some cases, inaccurate."

The GAO report then outlined the FTA's explanation for its inconsistent data:

First, FTA told us that it does not have records on when a project begins alternatives analysis because this phase is conducted at the local level, generally without FTA involvement. Second, FTA told us that it does not record when a project sponsor submits an application for preliminary engineering, final design, and FFGA because project sponsors almost never submit complete applications.

The bureaucratic hurdles that transit planners must clear to win federal aid stand in stark contrast to road projects' usually unobstructed path to approval. But without solid data to make the case for fixing New Starts, transit advocates' already arduous political fight for fairer treatment is likely to get even harder.

The GAO report can be downloaded in full here.

Source: GAO

FTA's Peter Rogoff (in hard hat) heard strong words from Rep. Oberstar today. (Photo: WP)

"They need to ... catch up with the House" on transportation policy-making, Oberstar said of Porcari and Rogoff, who were sitting within spitting distance of the chairman.

"If you don't pass our bill, you're not going to get a head start on these strategies" for reducing the carbon footprint of the transportation sector, Oberstar told the White House aides.

He added: "The president gets it -- the crowd around him doesn't."

The White House continues to press for an 18-month postponement of the next long-term transportation bill, which Oberstar asserts could drag reform past the two-year mark and continue an inequitable system that favors new highway construction over transit. 

"When highway planners sit down to build a roadway," Oberstar said today, "they don't go through the gymnastics of a cost-effectiveness index," as transit planners are currently required to do. "They sit down, get the money, and build a road."

Expanding transit, the House chairman concluded, is difficult "if you've got a millstone around your neck."

Yet the House bill has a millstone of its own obstructing movement: the lack of revenue to fund a doubling in new transit investment and other Oberstar priorities. As Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) acknowledged this morning, hiking the federal gas tax -- which has remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993 -- will not be feasible until the recession dissipates.

"We are going to raise gas and diesel taxes sometime in the next decade," Blumenauer said, but "not while the economy is in freefall."

The scene of the June 22 Washington D.C. Metro crash. Photo: AP

The proceedings got off to an appropriately somber start, as California Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) used his opening statement to explain that this spring's stimulus package contained billions for a Mag-Lev rail line from Orange County to Las Vegas.

This, of course, is completely false, and the quip was entirely unrelated to the rest of his remarks. I'm sure Issa's constituents will be glad to know that he's taking transportation issues seriously.

Testimony was heard from a number of experts, and from Patrick Tuite, a rider on one of the trains in the collision, who provided a riveting account of the accident. But not much in the way of new information emerged.

The facts of the incident remain as previously understood. A recently replaced portion of track circuitry intended to detect the presence of trains on the tracks and facilitate the automatic train control system malfunctioned intermittently after installation, including around the time of the accident. The operator of the striking train attempted to engage the brakes before impact, but to no avail.

The National Transportation Safety Board continues to investigate the matter and may not have a final report on it for some time. In the meantime, trains on the Metro system continue to operate in manual mode, and on reduced speeds and a single track at the site of the accident (creating major headaches for riders on the system, which is a critical piece of metropolitan infrastructure).

Three broad themes emerged in testimony. The first concerned funding problems, at Metro specifically and for transit generally. Former congressman Tom Davis spoke at length about the funding difficulties at Metro, which have contributed to a $6 billion capital needs shortfall (in his estimation; Metro's John Catoe noted that identified needs run to over $11 billion at this time).

Metro's idiosyncrasies greatly complicate its funding. Unlike any other transit system in the country, there is no dedicated revenue source; all appropriations are ad hoc. This is particularly problematic as the system stretches across two states and the District of Columbia.

To make matters worse, Metro is overseen by the subcommittee on the District of Columbia rather than through the transportation committee. Federal appropriations for the system must travel a different route than money directed toward every other system in the country.

In an effort to overcome some of these difficulties, Congress has passed a law matching $1.5 billion in revenue from newly established local dedicated funding streams, to the tune of $150 million a year for 10 years. That's an improvement, but it obviously only begins to close the system's capital needs gap.

And so other testifying experts, most notably American Public Transportation Association president William Millar, argued forcefully for passage of a new transportation funding act, which would include adequate resources for the nation's transit systems. Unfortunately, Mr Millar may have to wait until 2011.

The second broad theme was the safety record of Metro specifically and transit generally relative to competing modes of transportation. Millar noted that a transit journey is roughly 20 times safer than an equivalent automobile trip.

Passenger fatalities in the June 22 accident were the system's first in over 20 years. Transit accidents make news because they're large and rare, but annual deaths in automobiles are several orders of magnitude higher than in rail systems.

And finally, there was extensive discussion of rail safety procedures generally. Oversight of safety systems was a hot topic, as was replacement of equipment -- particularly relevant in this case given the track failure, but also the age and poor crash performance of the forward car in the striking train.

An interesting note on this score came from Brian Bilbray (R-CA) who argued that the move toward increased automation of train systems might be counterproductive.

In particular, he suggested that using automatic train controls with manual back-up was unhelpful, as operators tend to tune out while trains are in automatic mode. Rather, a system of manual operation with automated back-up might improve safety.

Amusingly, he compared the operating procedures in transit vehicles to those in the B-2 bomber. Of course, if transit systems had the budget per vehicle of the B-2 program, the issue of aging capital equipment might not have arisen in the first place.

In all, it seems the Metro crash will lead to some valuable changes in operating procedures, and it has already resulted in the speedy direction of promised funds to the system. But the accident mainly provides an opportunity to reflect on how safe transit systems actually are, and how the nation's inability to fund those systems adequately -- and build new ones -- is an unfortunate and significant policy failure.

Minnesota's Hiawatha rail line is exceeding initial ridership estimates by 58 percent, according to the Twin Cities' Metropolitan Council. (Photo: MN Public Radio)

Since its inception in the 1970s, New Starts has provided states and localities with more than $10 billion. Unfortunately, the program has forced local planners to clear cumbersome bureaucratic hurdles in order to prove their projects' cost-effectiveness while ignoring the economic-development benefits of transit.

During a Senate Banking Committee hearing yesterday, some of those planners sent an urgent message to Congress: Please fix New Starts.

"I can say with some certainty that if a mayor requested an additional station for a New Starts project today -- a request that would improve the project through increased ridership and economic development -- the result would be project delay and cost increases," Richard Sarles, executive director of New Jersey Transit, told the senators.

Actually, there was only one senator in the room: Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Banking panel's transportation subcommittee. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) left the hearing after reading a brief statement on the importance of keeping federal transit funding high, providing a dismaying illustration of Congress' lack of urgency on transportation issues despite the system's imminent insolvency.

The low turnout didn't impede a lively debate, however. Two shortcomings of the New Starts process were singled out as ripe for reform: the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) intense level of review for even smaller transit projects and the lack of consideration of economic development in evaluating funding pitches.

Mariia Zimmerman, policy director at the advocacy group Reconnecting America, said her recent research has found that several newly built transit lines are 15 years ahead of ridership estimates issued during the New Starts process. She questioned the effectiveness of the FTA's existing ridership-prediction model, dubbed the Transit System User Benefit, given its poor track record at determining cost-effectiveness.

"It is interesting to note that some of these [successful transit] lines would not have ben funded if rated solely on their cost-effectiveness rating," Zimmerman said. Indeed, the Obama administration recently cleared Portland's streetcars for $75 million in New Starts money that the Bush-era DOT had denied, citing a subpar cost-effectiveness rating.

Zimmerman suggested that Congress give states and localities more freedom to count private investment, such as the building of lower-income housing developments near new transit, as a match to help win New Starts money from Washington. Menendez appeared open to making housing construction part of the process, noting that Sarles' Hudson-Bergen light rail network has generated $5 billion on that front alone.

Gary Thomas, president of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, had another suggestion for bringing New Starts ratings into the 21st century: Start accounting for the environmental benefits of extra transit. "In addition," he added, "the cost calculation should consider only the federal project cost -- local sponsors should be able to add project features at their own expense without harming their cost-effectiveness rating."

Increasing transit's overall share of the discretionary transportation budget -- that is, creating transit funding outside of New Starts -- was mentioned in written testimony but didn't get much airtime at the hearing. As the federal transportation bill moves slowly towards reality, that subject may need to be dragged to the forefront.