Streetsblog Capitol Hill

According to research assembled by the American Public Transportation Association and Building America's Future, an increase of $1 per gallon in the price of gas creates roughly 500 million transit trips. Image: APTA/BAF

When gas prices go up, it can be a big motivator for people to start taking transit more frequently. But according to a study released by the American Public Transportation Association and Building America’s Future [PDF], even when gas prices start to go down, the newly converted keep riding transit.

The report, “Volatile Gas Prices Point to Increased Use of Public Transportation,” draws on independent research about “the elasticity of transit ridership” — economist-speak for how much a change in gas prices affects transit use. As APTA points out in their press release, the results indicate an unexpected relationship between gas prices and transit ridership:

 It showed that on average, nationwide public transportation systems will add nearly 200 million new trips this year even as gas prices fluctuate by as much as 50 cents per gallon.

The report carries significant implications for transportation policy as Congress continues its effort to pass a new transportation bill before the June 30 deadline. Early proposals out of the House forbade the use of Highway Trust Fund dollars to pay for transit, and while those proposals have disappeared for now, it still remains a popular viewpoint among many on the political right.

But with more Americans opting not to drive, this is precisely the wrong time to start shortchanging transit. As APTA and BAF note, “the nation’s public transportation infrastructure is not prepared to handle the long-term unpredictable nature of gas prices.”

“Americans view our transportation network as one system, which is why public transportation and our road network should continue to receive funding from the highway trust fund,” said Gary Thomas, chair of APTA and CEO of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, in a conference call with reporters yesterday. “We should fund, build, and plan it like one system, where our public transportation system makes our road network more efficient.”

Read more…

This morning, at the American Public Transportation Association’s annual legislative conference, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said he was recently asked by the House Appropriations Committee if he prefers a two-year transportation bill or a five-year transportation bill. Neither, he said: “I prefer a bipartisan bill.”

Sec. Ray LaHood says the Senate bill is "a pretty darn good start." Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“Bipartisanship is the reason the Senate bill is a good bill,” LaHood said, joining T4America and a number of other advocacy organizations in backing the upper house’s transportation proposal, which happens to be the two-year one. “It reflects the values of the American people.”

Granted, LaHood didn’t have much to choose from, since the House has scratched its original five-year proposal and has not yet settled on a replacement. But LaHood indicated that the hyper-partisan process that created the House’s initial proposal was reason enough to oppose it.

“Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe sat together and wrote a bill,” LaHood said. “That’s how you get good legislation, not when one person flops down a bill on the desk of a House committee and doesn’t have the courtesy to share it with the other side of the aisle.”

While LaHood is on record calling the House bill, which would have eliminated dedicated funding for transit, the worst he’d ever seen “in 35 years of public service,” the Senate bill, by its authors’ own admission, contains many of the same policy provisions as the House’s. (House and Senate staffers held a Q&A panel after LaHood was finished, during which they pointed out their many similarities; Streetsblog will have more on that later.)

Both bills attack funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects, though the Senate has adopted an amendment that softens the blow. Both contain measures that “expedite” project delivery by skimping on environmental review. And neither does anything meaningful in the way of finding new revenue sources to ensure adequate — let alone increased — funding for long-term investment in transportation infrastructure.

Even LaHood admits that the Senate bill is a far cry from the administration’s proposed budget, which he will continue to defend in congressional testimony later this week. ”It’s not everything we all want, but it’s a pretty darn good start. We should be persuading the House to get on the bus.”

Read more…

Stop me if you’ve heard these before:

Stephen Harrod, Assistant Professor at the University of Dayton, quoted in a recent APTA report. Image: APTA

“Most Americans don’t use railroads, they use cars.”

“There’s no better example of excessive government spending than the $53 billion President Obama allocated for high-speed rail in his 2012 budget.”

“Would you pay $1,000 so that someone — probably not you — can ride high-speed trains 58 miles a year?”

“High-speed rail may be feasible in parts of Europe or Japan, where the population density is much higher, but without enough people packed into a given space, there will never be enough riders to repay the cost of building and maintaining a high-speed rail system.”

Critics of federal initiatives to promote high-speed rail have launched these attacks with great frequency over the past few years. Their targets have been projects in Florida, Wisconsin, California, or even federal regulators and Secretary Ray LaHood. But their primary intended audience was the American people, and, according to the American Public Transportation Association, there has been a “well-oiled campaign” (pun probably intended) to make sure their message was repeated, and loudly.

APTA is trying to unplug that propaganda machine with its new “Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed Rail With Suggested Responses and Counterpoints” [PDF]. It methodically lists no fewer than 37 specific objections to pursuing high-speed rail (grouped thematically into eight chapters) and exposes them for “lack of veracity and vision.” The four critiques quoted above (the first two from Diana Furchtgott-Roth in the Washington Examiner, the third from CATO’s Randall O’Toole and the last from Thomas Sowell in The Albany Herald), barely scratch the surface of the anti-HSR literature addressed by the report.

The aim of the report is to give HSR supporters a way to return fire when detractors say things like:

• High-speed rail is too expensive and will never be profitable. APTA says the question of profit is “dangerously misleading and irrelevant” since “the economic value generated by passenger transportation historically is captured by the businesses served by the transportation network, not by the carriers.”
• It doesn’t have broad enough support. On the contrary, says APTA: Even the Congressional leaders who have been the most critical of the Obama administration’s allocation of rail funds “have set about finding creative ways of financing the initiative in the hope of encouraging greater private-sector support and leadership.”
• HSR might work elsewhere, but it won’t work in the U.S. Oh really? Sure, intercity passenger rail currently serves “the smallest share of riders among all modes of passenger transportation,” says APTA. But that’s changing. “In the Northeast Corridor, intercity trains enjoy a market share almost equal to the airlines, and nationally, ridership on Amtrak is at an all-time high.”

Many of the debunked criticisms point to some combination of unrecoverable cost and only marginal benefits, with the assumption that taxpayers will be on the hook for costs and that benefits will be confined to a select few. Not so: APTA cites ample evidence that high-speed passenger rail could be capable of operating profits and wide-ranging benefits.

Read more…

At Rail~Volution yesterday, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) — also known as the godfather of the “rail~volution” — said even he wouldn’t raise the gas tax right now.

Earl Blumenauer takes the podium at Rail~Volution, while moderator Grace Crunican of BART, APTA President Bill Millar, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (not pictured) stand by. Photo by Clarence Eckerson, Jr.

“We should make some adjustments to a gas tax that hasn’t increased since 1993,” Blumenauer said. “Half the people think the gas tax goes up every year.”

He said he’d like to see it indexed to inflation:

In an ideal world, I would not raise the gas tax this year or next year. Come out of this recession, but put in place increases that are going to occur over the next 10 years; have that revenue stream. I would borrow against the revenue stream to take advantage of record low interest rates and a bidding climate like we’ve never seen, fund the president’s infrastructure bank to help move some of these forward, and work toward replacing the gas tax.

He reminded the audience that his state was the first to institute a gas tax, and now Oregon is working to get rid of it and replace it with a vehicle miles traveled fee.

Bill Millar, the outgoing president of the American Public Transit Association (“on Halloween, I turn into a pumpkin!”), said that before switching to a VMT fee, Congress needs to eliminate the federal guarantee, called “equity bonus,” that states will get back at least a certain percentage of what they pay in gas tax receipts. (The GAO recently found that every state actually gets back more than it puts in, thanks to infusions from the general fund, but that hasn’t stopped a lot of states from complaining that they don’t get their fair share.)

“States that encourage more travel get more money back [under the equity bonus system],” Millar said, “so we’ve got to break that cycle too, to make sure instead it’s an inverse relationship and states that give people more choice, more ways to travel, get more federal aid, not less federal aid.”

Read more…

Austin's new commuter rail line helped fuel impressive transit ridership growth. Photo: Sahmeditor

Has your morning bus commute gotten a little more crowded lately? Sharing the light rail car with a few more folks? That’s because transit ridership just keeps rising, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Americans took 85.7 million more trips on public transportation in the first six months of this year than they did during the same months last year.

It’s not just tough economic times that gets people on the bus (or train). Sure, tighter family budgets and high gas prices lead people to look for alternatives to driving, and that boosts transit ridership. But the recession cuts both ways when it comes to transit. APTA is justified in predicting even greater ridership when the recession ends, since more people with jobs means more people commuting.

The most impressive numbers — a 221 percent increase in Austin’s commuter rail ridership — are a little misleading, since its commuter rail system opened in March 2010, halfway through the period being examined. Still, ridership grew impressively across the south, and there’s no harm in crediting new capacity with the growth. Dallas saw a 32 percent growth in light rail, Nashville saw a 38.5 increase in commuter rail, and Miami’s bus ridership grew by 10 percent while its heavy rail ridership grew by 6.4 percent.

The 85.7 million additional trips represent a small but significant 1.7 percent increase, proving, yet again, the importance of transit in U.S. life. It’s a good reminder to government officials that they should look elsewhere for a budget line item to cut. People rely on transit to get to work, to save money, and to reduce congestion — all important goals that governments should be supporting.

APTA’s full second quarter report is here [PDF].

Yesterday, transit advocates in more than two dozen cities around the country held rallies to urge Congress to maintain funding for public transportation. The “Don’t X Out Transit” events brought attention to the massive cuts in service and fare hikes that have besieged U.S. transit agencies, and made it clear that the 30 percent funding cut in the House transportation bill would be a death blow to many systems.

Yesterday's "Don't X Out Transit" rally in Los Angeles. Photo: Crystal McMillan / Bus Riders Union

The American Public Transportation Association collected testimonials from a variety of transit organizations nationwide, explaining what such a deep cut would mean to their service:

A 30 percent cut would probably eliminate our service. Under the present political environment a 30 percent loss in federal support is just another nail in the coffin.

- Northwest Indiana Regional Bus Authority, Hammond, IN

If our 5307 funding were cut by 30 percent, it would amount to a loss of about $360,000. About the only way this can be made up without additional revenues is to eliminate all holiday service and Saturday service (we have never operated on Sundays). Our paratransit service would also no longer operate on holidays and Saturdays… Of course, with these cuts we would also have to lay off operators and other staff.

- City of Las Cruces RoadRUNNER Transit, Las Cruces, NM

A 30 percent cut in federal funding would mean that we would have to cut up to five of our 17 community routes. Our funding situation is already so precarious that our “neighborhood” routes only run four or five trips a day, Monday through Friday, so any further cutbacks would mean elimination of all service on these routes.

- Centre Area Transportation Authority, State College, PA

We have been able to… boost the frequency of service to no more than 15 minutes between buses from 6am to 9pm Monday thru Friday on our most popular routes resulting in the first 4 months a 15 percent increase in ridership and similar results beginning to occur on the routes feeding those two. Cut funding and we will become a system of hour headways.

- Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY

Read more…

How bad have the past two years been for transit agencies in the United States? In a word: bad. In two words: very bad.

Chicagoans protest transit cuts in late 2009. That was the beginning of a deluge of cuts across the U.S. that still persists today, according to a new survey from the American Public Transportation Association. Photo: Chicago Current

In survey results released today [PDF], the American Public Transportation Association reports that 51 percent of transit agencies have either raised fares or reduced service since last year. Meanwhile, 79 percent said they are planning to, or considering, doing so in the near future. Worse, 40 percent of agencies that have made cuts are still facing budget shortfalls in the coming year.

“Public transportation systems are currently experiencing decreases in their funding during a time when many are serving an increased number of riders,” said APTA President William Millar. “Systems are forced to continue to freeze positions and lay off workers, which makes providing necessary transit service even more difficult.”

For the 117 agencies surveyed, funding cuts at every level are leaving little choice but to scale back. Local and regional funding has been flat or decreasing for 73 percent of agencies. Meanwhile, 83 percent saw reduced or stagnant state support.

Capital funding is also declining across the board, forcing agencies to delay maintenance and threatening their long-term financial health. Almost every agency (85 percent) is experiencing some loss in capital dollars, APTA reports.

Funding woes have been particularly hard on larger transit systems. APTA reports 63 percent of larger agencies approved hiring freezes in 2011. Of those agencies, 74 percent are reducing the number of positions, while 46 percent are imposing layoffs.

Millar said the crisis at local agencies could be compounded by the House transportation bill put forward by Rep. John Mica, which would impose a 37 percent reduction in federal funding for transit. Such draconian cuts would surely result in a new round of service reductions and fare hikes that could have a chilling impact on job creation, APTA officials warned.

“Clearly, local and state governments will not be able to make up the difference as these needs increase,” Millar said.

In the 24 hours since Rep. John Mica has unveiled his proposal for the next six years of transportation policy and funding, my inbox has been flooded with responses from advocates, lawmakers, policy wonks, and everyone in between, giving their perspective on the bill’s potential impacts. I posted some yesterday, but they just keep a-comin’.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), chair of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee and a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works: “Repairing and improving infrastructure is a proven way to create jobs and reinvigorate the economy, yet Republicans want to slash funding, let our roads and bridges fall into a state of further disrepair and take more jobs away from workers. In New Jersey transportation is the lifeblood of our economy and we cannot afford to be stuck in more traffic or let our aging infrastructure degrade any further. I will fight this plan and work in the Senate for a stronger investment so that New Jersey and states across the country can use transportation projects to create jobs, ease commutes, boost the economy and modernize our infrastructure.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (via Twitter): “Rep. Mica plan to cut infrastructure is job-killing, future-suffocating, pessimistic vision of US as ‘can’t do’ nation.”

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO: “It is astonishing and unconscionable that the House Republican leadership would push a surface transportation re-authorization bill that would gut current infrastructure investment by a third and obliterate over half a million jobs in the next year alone… It defies imagination that the Republican leadership and Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would turn their backs on the needs of our country and pretend it is good government.”

Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “It is clear the Committee has been constrained by the House-passed budget as the investment levels are unacceptable. Cuts will destroy – rather than support — existing jobs and will not enable creation of the additional jobs needed to put the 16.3% of unemployed workers in the construction industry back to work.”

Barbara McCann, executive director of the National Complete Streets Coalition: “Representative Mica’s proposal ignores the millions of Americans who are now using the nation’s highways – by foot, bicycle and bus. By failing to include a complete streets provision, the bill would allow states to continue to build multi-lane roads through communities where pedestrians are left to tramp through the grass, bus riders are forced to run across dangerous intersections, and bicycle riders have nowhere to go. In addition, the proposal would eliminate the very modest dedicated funding for bicycling and walking, claiming these are ‘non-highway’ or ‘non-transportation’ activities. In fact, bicycling and walking make up 12 percent of the nation’s trips. Add in those getting on and off public transportation, and it turns out a good portion of the nation’s so-called ‘highway’ travel is make up of people who are not in private automobiles. Unfortunately, safety statistics bear this out: 67 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in the last ten years took place on federal-aid roads.”

Read more…

Transit officials spent the day on Capitol Hill yesterday, meeting with Congressional offices as part of the American Public Transportation Association’s legislative conference.

Transportation Committee Chair John Mica suggested they ask members for a six-year bill. Secretary Ray LaHood urged them to ask for support for President Obama’s “big, bold vision” for transportation.

LaTourette, right, meets with Ohio bike advocates during last week's Bike Summit. Photo courtesy of the League of American Bicyclists

Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) was a little more blunt. “You’d be nuts to ask for SAFETEA-LU levels,” he said. “That’s nuts.”

He told the transit professionals in the APTA crowd that they shouldn’t be shy about asking for significant funding increases. Whereas the Bike Summit last week stuck to a modest request (begging lawmakers not to slash the little funding cycling gets), LaTourette said the transit advocates would be “nuts” to take that route.

“How are we going to build America and put people back to work without robust funding in the transportation sector?” he asked. “If you don’t [ask for more funding], shame on you when your systems deteriorate.”

He said SAFETEA-LU wasn’t a good bill to begin with. From his position on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 14 years, he worked on TEA-21, which he said was “a good piece of legislation.” But he said by the time SAFETEA-LU was completed — two years late — declining transportation revenues had lowered the bar, leaving lawmakers with a $286 billion bill to cover more than $400 billion worth of needs.

Plus, he said, the bill’s inclusion of hundreds of earmarks, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, made it the “poster child for what’s wrong with Washington.” After that, LaTourette said, transportation funding was marked in people’s minds as wasteful and inefficient, a reputation that “sticks with us today.”

But while everyone in Washington is gung-ho about a six-year bill, LaTourette is pessimistic about the odds. “I would love to tell you there’s going to be a six-year bill, but I don’t know how,” he said. “No one wants to address the funding shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund.”

Whether we raise the gas tax at the pump or by the barrel, or start a vehicle-miles-traveled fee program, or toll more, we’re going to need more revenue, LaTourette said, but no one’s willing to do it. “Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.”

Read more…

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica (R-FL) both agree that a new surface transportation authorization bill needs to be finished before Congress leaves for the August recess. But that doesn’t mean it’ll happen.

ImpulseNC makes overhead wire systems like these for transit networks. It could lay off workers or move abroad if the U.S. doesn't get serious about long-term infrastructure funding. Photo: ImpulseNC

Mica is making noises about a far smaller bill than the one proposed in 2009 by then-Chair Jim Oberstar – and even smaller than SAFETEA-LU, passed in 2005 for $286 billion. “I could take up to a $250 billion bill and leverage it by five, four times,” Mica told Congressional Quarterly. “I could have a huge amount of capacity in helping to finance projects.”

A smaller size might save Mica’s bill from the same fate as Oberstar’s, which ran into a brick wall on raising the gas tax. (Indeed, the idea isn’t any more popular now than it was then.) But will it satisfy the bill’s secondary mandate: to create jobs?

Officials from the American Public Transportation Association say that although they’re calling for a doubling of the federal investment in public transportation – a long shot, they know – the most important thing is just to get a bill signed, and soon.

APTA released the results of a survey yesterday showing just how desperate the transit industry is for a new multi-year bill. Eighty-four percent of private sector firms predicted revenue losses if the transportation bill is further delayed. Fifty percent said they’d probably have to resort to layoffs.

Read more…