Update: today, February 9, advocacy groups are urging Americans to call their Representative and ask them to oppose HR7. For help finding your Congressmember’s phone number, click here.

Advocates and officials have reacted with alarm after seeing portions [...]]]>

You can urge your member of Congress to vote down the House's transportation bill at T4America's website.

Update: today, February 9, advocacy groups are urging Americans to call their Representative and ask them to oppose HR7. For help finding your Congressmember’s phone number, click here.

Advocates and officials have reacted with alarm after seeing portions of a House surface transportation bill (HR7) that would imperil funding for public transit, pedestrian, and cycling projects. Like the Senate’s MAP-21 bill, the House version consolidates many current transportation programs into a smaller number of broad, flexible ones, but there are major differences between the bills.

Observers have objected most vehemently to the provision in the House bill that would end dedicated funding for public transportation. Currently, public transportation is funded by 2.86 cents/gallon of the federal gas tax, which is placed in the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Under the bill, both public transit and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program would be paid for out of an “Alternative Transportation Account” funded with general taxes. Instead of being placed in a secure lockbox, as it is today, public transportation money would be subject to the unpredictable annual budget process and could be cut at any time.

The House bill would also completely eliminate Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes to Schools, which are dedicated pedestrian/bicycle funding programs that represent just 2% of federal transportation spending but pay huge dividends in mobility and safety. It would also gut the CMAQ program, which has historically funded projects that reduce dependence on automobiles. States would be able to use CMAQ funds to widen roads for single-occupancy vehicles, a previously ineligible project category, if they argued such projects would reduce congestion.

The House’s bill contains neither the environmentally friendly freight provisions, nor the strong incentives for road and bridge repair, that exist in various pieces of the Senate’s bill.

Many groups are also angry about the bill’s proposed funding sources. It would drastically expand oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the continental shelves, which has angered environmental groups. Conservative think tanks have also assailed the bill for eroding the principle that transportation spending should be funded by dedicated fees, like the gas tax.

The T4America reform coalition officially came out against the bill on Monday. Urge your Congressmember to oppose HR7 at T4America’s website. House leadership hopes to vote on the bill by the end of next week, even as opposition continues to mount.

Meanwhile, In the Senate

Compared to the controversial House bill, the Senate’s transportation bill has encountered mostly smooth sailing and has moved forward with bipartisan support. The Senate’s Banking Committee passed the transit title of MAP-21 on a unanimous vote last Thursday. It contains a number of provisions that will boost public transit:

• It authorizes nearly $21 billion for public transit over two years, a small increase over current transit funding levels.
• It includes a $20 million transit-oriented development grant program, which would provide grants to localities that want to plan around their stations.
• It includes operating flexibility for transit agencies, allowing them to use some federal funds to avoid service cuts during economic downturns.

Senator Bob Menendez of NJ played a major role in shaping the bill as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development.

Yesterday, the Senate’s Finance Committee identified about $10 billion in revenue sources to fully fund the bill and passed its part of the legislation. Its piece  includes a provision to permanently increase the commuter tax benefit for transit riders to $240/month, which would restore parity between transit and parking benefits. This would take effect only if the surface transportation bill is signed into law.

The two Senate votes clear the way for the bill’s move to the floor of the chamber. Procedural votes could begin Thursday, with actual debate on the bill next week. Advocates will be working to ensure that key reforms — such as ensuring that local communities can access pedestrian/bicycle safety funding — make it into the bill.

Each year, the environmental agency’s Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities program brings development professionals to improvement-minded municipalities across the country, where they advise officials, conduct day-long seminars, and assemble [...]]]> Towns in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut are planning for safer, more walkable streets, and now the Environmental Protection Agency is lending a hand.

Each year, the environmental agency’s Building Blocks for Sustainable Communities program brings development professionals to improvement-minded municipalities across the country, where they advise officials, conduct day-long seminars, and assemble “next steps” documents.

In the coming months, experts will visit Binghamton, NY to study complete streets, Onondaga County, NY to study zoning codes, Stony Point, NY to study smart growth economics, Simsbury, CT to audit the parking system, Passaic County, NJ to study green streets, and Jersey City to conduct walking audits.

If signed into law, the legislation would cut off the dedicated funding that public transportation receives from the national gas tax. Transit aid would have to come from the general fund, which would introduce an [...]]]> Government officials and advocates across the tri-state area have been voicing opposition to the House transportation bill all day.

If signed into law, the legislation would cut off the dedicated funding that public transportation receives from the national gas tax. Transit aid would have to come from the general fund, which would introduce an annual battle for transportation money.

At Grand Central, Joe Lhota, John Samuelsen, four House members, NYC Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, and NYC Central Labor Council President Vincent Alvarez all spoke about the bill’s potentially disastrous effects.

In New Jersey, Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) emphasized the toll that the bill would take on the economy before calling on the state’s Congressional delegation to oppose the law.

Senator Menendez (D-NJ) held a press conference in praise of the upper chamber’s transportation legislation. The Senate transportation bill would give New Jersey an additional $63 million in federal transit funding and continue to use national gas tax revenues to fund public transportation programs.

Former New Jersey Department of Transportation head Kris Kolluri also sharply critiqued the bill.

“If the gas tax funding for mass transit is not restored, New Jersey will have to rely on Congress’ good will each year to fund critical safety improvements, which is tantamount to a wing and a prayer,” he wrote in a Star-Ledger op-ed on Sunday.

The Star-Ledger editorial board joined Kolluri in condeming the House bill, which they believe “threatens to undo decades of New Jersey transit growth.”

“Without guaranteed federal funding, NJ Transit and other agencies will find it more difficult to plan growth and maintenance. Fares would rise, while equipment and infrastructure suffers, driving rail and bus riders back to their cars,” reads the editorial.

The Hartford Courant’s editors reached the same conclusion: the House transportation bill cannot pass.

“If Republicans were in tune with the rest of the country, and not just the oil industry, they would increase federal funding for transit. But they are going the other way…let us hope these bills do not survive the trip to the Senate,” the Courant wrote.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood also denounced the legislation and over 600 groups have signed on to a Transportation for America letter that demands a better bill.

This week, the Alliance for Biking and Walking released its 2012 Benchmarking Report, and the timing is impeccable. As Streetsblog points out, the release coincides with the soon-to-appear national surface transportation bill, and in the tri-state region, it comes just after state legislatures have gotten into full [...]]]>

Graphic: Alliance for Biking and Walking

This week, the Alliance for Biking and Walking released its 2012 Benchmarking Report, and the timing is impeccable. As Streetsblog points out, the release coincides with the soon-to-appear national surface transportation bill, and in the tri-state region, it comes just after state legislatures have gotten into full swing. With statistics, case studies and loads of other resources, the Benchmarking Report shows legislators where the nation’s biking and walking infrastructure stands.

After the jump, TSTC presents some of the report’s most interesting figures.

The report’s snapshot of the tri-state region highlighted some remarkable facts:

• New York State has the third highest share of people who walk and bike to work, and the state ranks second (after Alaska) in the number of people who walk to work.

• Connecticut is the 22nd-safest state for walkers, and 12.8% of its traffic fatalities are pedestrians.

• New Jersey spent .86% of its federal transportation dollars on bicycle or pedestrian projects from 2006-2010, a figure that ranks them below the national average of 1.6%. To be fair, New Jersey does contribute state money, though we have argued that it’s not enough.

Nationwide, there have been some commendable advances in cyclist and pedestrian welfare:

• A growing number of city and state policies have promoted biking and walking. These include complete streets legislation, goals for increased biking and walking, and bike/ped master plans. 19 of the 51 cities surveyed have complete streets policies.

• In 2009-2010, states and cities spent more on bike/ped improvements than they did in 2007-2008 (but they’re still not spending as much as they did in 2005-2006). Over the same period, state per capita funding for bike/ped has increased from $1.29 to $2.17 per person, and city funding for bike/ped has increased from $1.49 to $1.80.

There are also some worrying trends in the report, though:

• Traffic fatalities have decreased, but pedestrian traffic fatalities have increased from 11.3% to 11.7%. This means that, although there are fewer car accidents, pedestrians make up a larger share of accident victims. TSTC saw this trend in an NHSTSA report as well.

• States are disproportionally giving back Transportation Enhancements (TE) funds when the federal government issues rescissions (the term refers to the annual process in which Washington asks states to return unallocated federal transit funds). The trend is troublesome because TE money is used to fund bike/ped projects. In 2009, the average state gave back 21.9% of TE funds to the federal government, while in 2010, the figure was 26.4% (each year TE made up 2.3% of federal apportionments).

The Report aggregates data from federal sources, state DOTs, MPOs and non-profits to assemble a detailed analysis of biking and walking in the United States. Spanning all 50 states and the 51 largest U.S. cities, it covers biking and walking levels, cyclist and pedestrian demographics, safety, policy, and federal funding. The document also details the economic and public health benefits of investing in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, linking these kinds of projects to job creation, increased property values, cleaner air, and better personal health.

To see the full report, click here.

Transit riders throughout the tri-state region are facing heavy financial burdens after the transit commuter benefit was rolled back on January [...]]]>

The rollback in the transit benefit impacts the highlighted NJ Transit stations, and then some (this image was cropped for space). Click to view all of the affected stations in PDF form.

Transit riders throughout the tri-state region are facing heavy financial burdens after the transit commuter benefit was rolled back on January 1.

Before the cut, Americans could spend up to $230 in pretax income on the public transit that gets them to work, but the figure is now $125. At the same time, an equivalent benefit for parking rose to $240 per month, which means that the federal tax code now incentivizes driving over public transportation.

A monthly pass between New York City and almost any station on NJ Transit rail, Metro-North, or the Long Island Rail Road costs more than $125. For someone who makes $50,000 annually and spends $230 a month on transit, the rollback is tantamount to a yearly tax hike of $400.

At CommuterBenefitsWorkForUs.com, workers can e-mail Congress in support of restoring the transit benefit.

Lawmakers that attempted to extend the expiring commuter tax benefit at the end of last year have renewed their efforts in 2012. Senator Chuck Schumer said he would continue working to restore the benefit, New Jersey Senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez made similar pledges, and Connecticut’s Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Rosa DeLauro highlighted the issue at a press conference. All support the Commuter Benefits Equity Act (S1034/HR2412), which would permanently set the transit benefit equal to the parking benefit at $240/month. It has been co-sponsored by 10 senators, including all six from the tri-state region. The House equivalent currently has 62 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle.

When Congress debates the extension of a payroll tax cut, which will expire on February 29, legislators will likely have an opportunity to restore the benefit on a temporary basis. Commuters can e-mail Congress in support of restoring the transit benefit at CommuterBenefitsWorkForUs.com.

In the New York State Legislature, Senator Charles Fuschillo has introduced a bill to allow residents to deduct commuting costs from their state taxes as if the federal benefit had not been reduced. (State residents would still have a higher federal tax bill if Congress does not restore the benefit).

After the jump, TSTC maps show the rollback’s impact on Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road customers. NYC express bus riders, NJ Transit riders, commuter bus riders, and many whose commute involves multiple transit systems also have monthly transit costs that top $125.

Metro-North:

Click to view as a larger PDF.

LIRR:

Click to view as larger PDF.

While some in Congress indulge in end-of-year partisanship, it’s transit riders who will be hit by the hangover come January 1. Transportation For America reports that the transit commuter [...]]]>

Virtually all LIRR riders who receive federal transit commuter benefits will be hit with a "transit tax hike" next year. (Click to view larger.)

While some in Congress indulge in end-of-year partisanship, it’s transit riders who will be hit by the hangover come January 1. Transportation For America reports that the transit commuter tax benefit is essentially guaranteed to drop next year, from $230/month to $125/month, while the equivalent benefit for parking will rise to $240/month. This means the federal tax code will incentivize driving over public transportation.

The benefit rollback would cost commuters hundreds of dollars a year. According to a white paper produced by a coalition of benefit providers, someone who makes $50,000 a year and spends at least $230/month on transit will be hit with a “transit tax” of more than $400/year.

The majority of commuter rail monthly passes on NJ Transit, Metro-North, and the LIRR cost more than $125. (As shown above, it costs LIRR riders more than $125 for a monthly pass between any station in the system and New York City—including for trips within NYC). So do most monthly fares for the private and NJ Transit-operated commuter buses that travel into the Port Authority Bus Terminal. In New York City, express bus commuters typically pay at least $200/month (7-day Express Bus MetroCards are $50 each). Also affected would be commuters who ride more than one transit system, such as a person who pays $104 for a monthly MetroCard and $65 for monthly PATH fare.

According to TransitCenter, 15,000 companies in New York City offer the commuter tax transit benefit, and over a half-million employees make use of it.

The six senators from our region—Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez, Lieberman, and Blumenthal—have sponsored legislation to permanently increase the transit benefit (S1034/HR2412), and were among a group of 22 senators that had worked to include an extension of benefit parity in the payroll tax extension bill. This ultimately did not happen; efforts to restore the benefit will continue when Congress resumes work next month.

[Update: On Wednesday, the Senate's Commerce Committee voted to include much of the FREIGHT Act in its portion of the Senate's transportation reauthorization bill. More [...]]]>

A national freight program could help pay for port and rail projects that are central to the region's economy. Photo of Newark-Elizabeth Marine Terminal by Albert E. Theberge/NOAA.

[Update: On Wednesday, the Senate's Commerce Committee voted to include much of the FREIGHT Act in its portion of the Senate's transportation reauthorization bill. More at T4America's blog.]

Among the changes introduced in MAP-21, the Senate’s version of the reauthorization bill which sets all federal surface transportation policy, is an unprecedented national freight program. With some changes, this program could fill the policy vacuum around federal investment in rail and port projects. This would make it easier for states to fund alternatives to long-haul trucks that aggravate congestion, damage roads, and lower quality of life in some residential neighborhoods. But if the program stays as is, it could end up becoming just another funding source for roads, and the tri-state region needs more than that.

Currently, poor connections between the national freight rail network and the northeast mean that 90% of cargo entering New York and Connecticut arrives via truck. Freight rail projects—such as the long-discussed Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel between NJ and NY, as well as smaller projects like those in New York’s State Rail Plan—would take some of these long-haul trucks off of the region’s congested roads, lowering emissions and reducing the heavy toll that trucks take on the region’s roadways  (one 18-wheeler truck causes as much road damage as 9,600 cars, according to the Government Accountability Office). Port projects are also critical, given how central the Port of New York and New Jersey is to both the regional and the national economy.

But while most federal transportation funds are distributed to states according to legislative formulas, no such program exists for freight rail or port projects. Instead, states have had to rely on earmarks (which are being phased out) and a handful of small grant programs. The proposed transportation bill would direct USDOT to designate a national freight network and, moreover, would create a $2.1 billion/year National Freight Program to fund state-level projects that make shipping faster.

In the current version of the Senate’s bill, however, only 10% of the freight program’s funds could be used for rail and maritime projects, and only if USDOT certified that such projects were more cost-effective than a road project. (The sign-off requirement would not apply to road projects). Although states would also be allowed to use up to 10% of another funding program in the bill for freight rail (the Transportation Mobility Program), they clearly wouldn’t have the flexibility they need to invest in the most critical freight projects.

New Jersey elected officials have proposed two fixes to the keep-on-truckin’ ethos. The first, an amendment to MAP-21 from Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), would remove the 10% cap on rail and port projects, remove the USDOT sign-off requirement, and require states to consider environmental impacts on communities when evaluating projects.  The amendment was first offered in the Environment and Public Works Committee, and could be reintroduced when MAP-21 is closer to a full Senate vote.

The second is the FREIGHT Act (S327/HR1338), which was sponsored by Sen. Lautenberg and Rep. Albio Sires. It would expand MAP-21′s freight provisions by:

• Establishing performance-based criteria to evaluate freight projects, so that federal policy incentivizes projects that improve shipping delays and safety, and reduce air, water, and noise pollution.
• Creating a competitive grant program for freight projects. (Read more about the FREIGHT Act on MTR and T4America’s blog.)

The Senate’s Commerce Committee, which handles freight issues, will meet Wednesday and is likely to debate the inclusion of the FREIGHT Act’s provisions in MAP-21.

All six of the region’s senators are standing behind legislation to avoid an impending “transit tax hike” that would affect many commuters. Under federal law, commuters can use up to $230/month in pre-tax [...]]]>

Sen. Schumer held a press conference at Grand Central Terminal this month in support of extending tax benefits for transit commuters.

All six of the region’s senators are standing behind legislation to avoid an impending “transit tax hike” that would affect many commuters. Under federal law, commuters can use up to $230/month in pre-tax income to pay for parking (this will rise to $240/month next year due to a cost-of-living adjustment). Since 2009, transit commuters have received a benefit of the same size. But the legislative language setting the benefits equal to each other is set to expire at the end of this year, dropping the transit benefit down to $125/month.

A bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Commuter Benefits Equity Act (S1034/HR2412), would permanently bring the transit benefit up to $240/month. It has been co-sponsored by Senators Gillibrand, Lautenberg, Menendez, Lieberman, and Blumenthal. It was introduced by Rep. McGovern (D-MD) in the House and has 45 co-sponsors, including many from the tri-state region.

“The last thing we should be doing in this economy is making it more expensive for New Yorkers to get to work,” Sen. Schumer said at a Nov. 7 press conference at Grand Central Terminal in NYC.

If the transit benefit drops to $125/month, it would affect many commuters who pay more than that for transit. These include:

• Many commuter rail riders on NJ Transit, the LIRR, Metro-North, and Shore Line East. For example, a monthly pass between Newark Penn Station and Metropark on NJ Transit costs $168, and a monthly LIRR ticket between Hempstead and New York Penn Station costs $223.
• Express bus riders in NYC, who pay $50 per 7-day unlimited MetroCard, or over $200/month.
• Many NJ bus riders on private and NJ Transit lines commuting to the Port Authority Bus Terminal. For example, a monthly bus pass between NYC and Cresskill, NJ (in Bergen County) is $183.
• Those using multiple forms of public transit, such as a Jersey City resident who pays $65/month for the PATH rail system and also needs a $104 monthly MetroCard to commute to work in NYC.

Human resources departments throughout the region have already begun receiving notices that they should begin planning for the expiration of the benefit. TransitCenter has launched a website, CommuterBenefitsWorkForUs.com, where citizens can contact members of Congress on the issue.

Photo: Natasja Sheriff/Transportation Nation.

The cost to society of traffic crashes is over three times that of congestion, according to a new report from AAA. The report makes a clear case for the importance of traffic safety projects – road, bike, and sidewalk improvements that typically cost less than road widenings sold to the public as congestion relievers (but [...]]]>

The cost to society of traffic crashes is over three times that of congestion, according to a new report from AAA. The report makes a clear case for the importance of traffic safety projects – road, bike, and sidewalk improvements that typically cost less than road widenings sold to the public as congestion relievers (but which tend to increase driving and congestion in the long run).

According to the report, in 2009, fatal and non-fatal traffic crashes in urbanized areas had costs more than three times greater than the costs of congestion in those same areas. Costs associated with crashes — including property damage, lost household production, medical costs, and rehabilitation– were estimated to be $299.5 billion in 2009, while congestion costs for 2009 came in at $97.7 billion.

The report finds the highest per person crash costs are in smaller metropolitan areas, but in each metro area, the costs of crashes are higher than the costs of congestion. The total cost of crashes in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island metro area was $29.5 billion ($1,548 per person) – more than 2.6 times the cost of congestion for the region ($10.9 billion, or $580 per person).

Researchers used data from the Federal Highway Administration on the costs of crashes, and the Texas Transportation Institute’s estimates of congestion costs. Though costs associated with crashes have increased since the AAA’s previous study (released in 2008, using data from 2005), the pattern of crashes costing more than congestion has held from the previous iteration of the study.

The report offers a number of broad recommendations such as increasing “collaboration between disciplines” and funds for data collection. Its boldest have to do with national leadership. The study argues that the US should “make zero fatalities a national goal” and make safety a national priority.

Graph: TSTC using data from AAA report.