SECTION ONE: NEW MOBILITY - Transportation For America · 2018-12-13 · SECTION ONE: NEW MOBILITY...

SECTION ONE: NEW MOBILITY

Preemption: A Real Threat to Local Control 1

The Importance of Identifying Outcomes and Performance Metrics to Shape the New Mobility Paradigm Shift

3

Kicked to the Curb: Managing Our Curb Space 6

Pricing Mechanisms for New Mobility 8

SECTION 2: BEST PRACTICES

Our Transportation Infrastructure: Fix It First 10

Focus on Access to Destinations Rather Than Vehicle Speed 12

Demonstrate and Achieve Success by Measuring Performance 14

Practical Solutions: Creating A More Flexible Design Landscape 16

The State's Role in Completing the Streets 18

SECTION 3: FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Uncertainty: With Policy and Funding Expiring Soon, What Do We Want Next? 20

State and Local Options In A Time of Uncertainty 22

Climate: The Impact On, and of, Transportation Infrastructure 25

How Communities Can Provide, and Improve, Transit Options While Reducing Housing Costs 27

What’s Health Got To Do With It? 30

POLICY MEMOS

OVERVIEW

Transportation network companies (TNCs) such as ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, dockless electric scooters, and dockless bikes are changing the way people get around and how transportation networks operate. At the same time, cities must also change how they regulate transportation to ensure local needs are addressed by these new and rapidly proliferating mobility options. Unfortunately, there are efforts to prevent local governments from determining how these services can operate in their community or how to address conflicts between mobility service providers.

State and local governments generally have the authority to manage the operation of vehicles on their streets to address concerns such as noise, congestion, or safety. Cities and states need to be able to manage new mobility options on their transportation systems in the same way they manage all other vehicles, commercial and non-commercial, in order to ensure the safety of everyone using their system. Effectively managing this ever-changing landscape will require collaboration between all levels of government and the private sector in order to create a seamless transportation system. Policy makers should be concerned about legislation which strips state or local governments of their authority and leaves them without the tools

necessary to protect the public and to address the problems that have and will surely continue to arise during the testing and deployment of new mobility options.

As new mobility services are introduced into the transportation system, there will be both opportunities and challenges that come with them. Tackling them will require a focus on long-term goals and a willingness to collaborate to address short-term hurdles. If entire jurisdictions are left out of this process, they will not be able to collaborate on addressing the bumps in the road to deployment and this is likely to slow the arrival of important mobility services.

CASE STUDIES

Legislation has passed in 48 states and the District of Columbia to regulate TNCs in an effort to preempt local control over this new industry.1 In addition, the federal government is considering legislation to preempt both state and local authority regarding autonomous vehicles (AVs). This all restricts the ability of cities to enact or enforce local regulations.2 Below are two different approaches to state

1 https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/technology/tnc-legislation/ 2http://www.forworkingfamilies.org/sites/pwf/files/publications/Uber%20State%20Interference%20Jan%202018.pdf

POLICY MEMO

Preemption: A Real Threat to Local Control

• Collaboration versus pre-emption• Proactively engage private sector and state policymakers

New mobility options are having a significant impact on cities. Effectively and efficiently deploying these services while addressing their impact will require collaboration between the private sector and all levels of government. Yet there are some efforts to preempt local authority regarding new mobility. Preemption undermines the ability of cities to thoughtfully enact policies that utilize these services to fill mobility gaps, address conflicts between providers and could slow the deployment of these important services. Bringing all parties to the table as a team should be the goal.

1

Deploying New Mobility Options

1152 15th Street N.W., Suite 450 • Washington, DC 20005 • t4america.org

preemption on TNCs from Texas and Washington.

Austin, TX

In December 2015, the Austin City Council enacted new rules on TNCs requiring drivers to undergo background checks and fingerprinting. Uber and Lyft strongly opposed these requirements and backed a voter referendum in May 2016 to replace the council-approved rules with their own. Uber and Lyft spent a combined $10 million in support of the referendum. This is more than had been spent on any mayoral race in the city. However the measure was defeated with 56 percent opposed.3 As a result, Uber and Lyft immediately stopped operating in Austin.

When Uber and Lyft left the Austin market, several smaller, homegrown TNCs expanded services and operated under the city’s new requirements. Uber and Lyft, retaliated by hiring 40 lobbyists who successfully lobbied the Texas Legislature to push sweeping legislation to define TNCs as a new type of transportation operator subject only to state regulation.4 The law invalidated Austin’s city regulations. Uber and Lyft quickly returned and reclaimed their dominant positions in the Austin ride-hailing market.5

Seattle, WA

Compared to Texas, the Washington’s Legislature has taken a more limited role, allowing the City of Seattle to actively regulate TNCs. In 2014, Seattle permitted TNCs to enter the city on a limited basis with 150 drivers per company on the road at one time. Uber, Lyft, and Sidecar put a referendum on the 2014 ballot to approve more lenient restrictions and then negotiated with the city to raise the caps on the number of drivers.

3 http://www.mystatesman.com/news/transportation/final-prop-tab-for-uber-lyft-tops-million/ml0SnRRZfR8PPK0xsP0VfI/ 4 https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2017-03-14/lege-for-sale/ 5 https://austinstartups.com/what-we-learned-from-the-first-week-of-uber-lyft-returning-to-austin-5451a34889e7

When the Washington Legislature took up TNC laws the following year, it chose to pass only narrow regulations on TNC and driver insurance. The state did not preempt other policy-making powers from local government.

In 2016, Seattle enacted regulations allowing drivers to organize and collectively bargain with TNCs. As a result, TNCs with help from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have repeatedly sued to block this rule.

The battle over regulation does not speed the delivery of these new mobility services in a way that improves access to jobs and services. Nor does it address TNC’s potential to increase traffic congestion and worsen air quality. To effectively ensure these services address our long-term goals, states and cities must work together to balance the opportunities that mobility services provide with strategies to avoid the negative impacts.

TAKE ACTION

• Collaborate between state andlocal government to manage newmobility on both state and localtransportation systems

• Develop and advocate for newmobility policies that supportother policy priorities andinfrastructure needs.

• Develop shared and new mobilityplans and pilot programs thatserve broader local developmentand policy goals.

2

OVERVIEW

Many states and localities are struggling to implement an outcome-oriented approach to how they want to see new mobility services such as automated vehicles (AV’s), Transportation Network Companies, and dockless bikes and scooters operate in their communities. Communities must articulate the outcomes they want from these services, such as reducing congestion, creating safer streets, lowering emissions, and improving equity either before the technology arrives or as they are engaged in early stage testing.

Articulating desired outcomes, however, is not enough. Communities must identify ways to measure success toward these goals, such as fewer road deaths, improved access to jobs or education within a certain time frame, reduced emissions, and reduced travel times.

Many communities, understandably focused on mitigating the potential negative impacts of new mobility, must also advance proposals to harness the positive impacts. In other words, communities must use desired outcomes to set the bar for what they want to achieve, in addition to what they want to avoid. Preventing a negative outcome is not the same thing as achieving a positive outcome. In order to fully harness the positive benefits of this technology, communities will need to think proactively

about what they want to achieve and how they want new mobility services to operate.

Data is essential to measuring outcomes. The data generated by new mobility services could revolutionize the way communities direct resources and plan their transportation systems by allowing them to understand and assess the impacts of new mobility on the transportation network. The types of data communities should be looking to collect include trip origin and destination, average trip length, average number of passengers in each vehicle, time of day, and the average trip cost.

Communities could operate their transportation systems more nimbly while also making better-informed policy decisions and investments if they are able to harness this data effectively. They could have more responsive transportation management and may even be able to forecast and correct for problems before they occur.

To do so, cities must work with new mobility services and need to think proactively about the outcomes they want from new mobility services, the metrics by which they will judge these outcomes, and the data they need to measure these outcomes.

POLICY MEMO

The Importance of Identifying Outcomes and Performance Metrics to Shape the New Mobility Paradigm Shift

• Identify the desired outcomes of transportation projects• Determine how to measure outcomes• Collect data necessary to measure outcomes

Policy makers and advocates need to proactively shape the new mobility paradigm shifts in order to ensure their communities get the desired outcomes from these new modes. In order to do this, policy makers need to determine what metrics are important to the outcomes they want to achieve and be judicious in picking the data sources needed to determine if the outcomes are met or not.

3

The Importance of Identifying Outcomes and Performance Metrics To Shape the New Mobility Paradigm Shift


CASE STUDIES

Seattle Department of Transportation

The Seattle Department Of Transportation (SDOT) New Mobility Playbook, released in September of 2017, is a clear vision statement for how the City plans to incorporate new mobility services, including AVs, into their future.

The Playbook creates a set of principles to guide their work as they adapt to these coming changes, which are: 1) put people and safety first; 2) design for customer dignity and happiness; 3) advance race and social justice; 4) forge a clean mobility future; and 5) keep an even playing field.

SDOT then sets out five objectives to define how new mobility services will help solve their transportation challenges. These are to 1) enhance equity; 2) improve safety; 3) optimize the department’s structure and processes; 4) build better data infrastructure; and 5) anticipate new technologies and changes. With these in mind, the city has a clear idea of the opportunities and challenges they’re facing, where new mobility services can help, and what SDOT needs to do to take advantage of the opportunity they present. Each of these five objectives contains a list of key strategies to guide their approach.

Throughout the playbook, SDOT emphasizes the upsides and downsides to these new technologies and consistently recognizes the need for Seattle to shape how these technologies operate, instead of leaving them to chance. Wrapping these together allows SDOT to focus on the good and the bad together and take a more holistic and proactive approach toward their long-term goals.

For example, the playbook recognizes the need to create an information and data infrastructure for all new mobility services to avoid each service’s data becoming fragmented and siloed.

Ultimately, the playbook calls for a strategy that results in the following outcome: “(SDOT) create(s) clear rules for testing new technology, piloting new services and prototyping in the city. The results of prototypes are clearly evaluated against the city’s values and goals. Successful prototypes can scale rapidly. Services that don’t work can “fail gracefully.” Transportation data is open and interoperable. Finding your way around the city without your own car is easy. Seattleites can purchase transportation services when they need them.”1

By laying out the specific outcomes with respect to information and data infrastructure that SDOT wants to achieve and strategies to achieve those outcomes, SDOT is in a strong position to proactively work with all new mobility providers to get them to use this framework.

1 https://newmobilityseattle.info/storage/app/media/Documents/ Sept2017/ NewMobility_Playbook.pdf (Page 41)

4

The Importance of Identifying Outcomes and Performance Metrics To Shape the New Mobility Paradigm Shift


TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Don’t preempt the ability of localcommunities to regulate new mobilityproviders.

• Direct the State Department ofTransportation to provide expertise tolocal communities so they can proactivelyplan for new mobility providers, especiallywith regard to the outcomes a localcommunity wants to achieve.

• Create grants for local communities tohelp them plan for, implement, or test newmobility services.

• Incentivize local communities to partnerwith each other and regional institutionsto launch new mobility pilot projects.

Local governments:

• Advocate for the state legislature NOT totake away a local community’s ability toregulate new mobility providers.

• Clearly define desired outcomes to ensurefocus on what the community wants toachieve with new mobility providers,rather than solely on what the communitywants to avoid.

• Determine how to manage automationacross different service models, such asridesourcing, transit, and freight delivery.

• Identify various policy levers thecommunity can leverage today to preparefor the wave of automation in the future.

• Include a greater focus on equity andcommunity engagement as part of theprocess as well as collaboration acrossdepartments and agencies.

5

OVERVIEW

Cities have seen demands on curb space rise as transportation network companies (TNCs), bikeshare, urban delivery vehicles, and automated vehicles (AVs) continue to grow. With so many uses vying for curb space, cities have begun to realize that they have been undermanaging and giving away one of their most valuable assets for free.

Along with other strategies, cities are considering and beginning to pilot broader curb management strategies, including ways to charge for curb use depending on the amount of time spent, the type of service, time of day, and more.

This can be especially challenging as departments across the city value and charge for various uses of the curb and public spaces at different rates, with very little to tie them all together into a coordinated pricing strategy. A first step is to understand how, when, and where curbs are being used, and if the demands are changing.

Along with understanding curb access and demand, many cities are considering programs to ease congestion and reduce safety issues caused by the high volume of TNCs picking up or dropping off passengers in busy corridors.

All of these strategies, from pricing to flex zones and pick up and drop off spaces, will be crucial for cities to adopt when new service models or technologies put additional pressure on their curb space.

CASE STUDIES

Portland, OR

As Portland explores a potential model to price curb space, they are first developing a way to determine the value of their curbs throughout the city and beginning to price by vehicle prioritization. For example, to further incentivize transit and other shared modes, curbside charges may be set at a higher rate for a single occupancy vehicle than a shared vehicle. This plan is still being finalized, but is the type of comprehensive reevaluation of curb space pricing that cities can apply to all transportation modes and services.

Coding the Curb: Pittsburgh, PA and Los Angeles, CA

Pittsburgh and Los Angeles also recognize the importance of understanding how curb space is being used. By looking at ways to code the curb, each city will develop a database of different curb uses across the city to better understand how, when, and where curb space is being used and develop strategies and policies to pilot different curb uses throughout the city and better manage their road network for all users.

Los Angeles’ program began in 2016 and will inventory curb regulations along all 7,500 miles of city streets. This will allow city staff to ensure that curb space allocation is consistent with the city’s transportation planning goals. It will also make it easier for technology providers to create digital applications to facilitate parking and other activities along the curb.

POLICY MEMO

Kicked to the Curb: Managing Our Curb Space

• Understanding new and increased demands on curb space• Managing demand using pricing, permitting, and other strategies

Cities are thinking about broader curb management strategies to help them handle the increased demand for curbside access with new mobility services.

6

Kicked to the Curb: Managing Our Curb Space


For both Pittsburgh and Los Angeles, a key component of coding the curb is getting better data on how it’s being used. Neither city—nor almost any city, for that matter—has been able to get robust data from TNCs. These cities are working to gather additional information in the future. Los Angeles has developed its Mobility Data Specification,1 a series of minimum data requirements across different mobility services that it will eventually apply to AVs. Having consistent data will help cities such as Los Angeles better understand how curb space—and the right-of-way in general—is being utilized, and plan accordingly.

San Francisco, CA

Lastly, San Francisco is running a pilot program to convert certain parking spaces on busy streets into pickup or drop off zones for TNCs.2 As part of the pilot, San Francisco will receive additional traffic and operational data from Uber and Lyft. The goal is to use these dedicated spaces to divert traffic away from busy streets and keep TNCs out of the way of other vehicles as well as pedestrians and bicyclists to minimize potential safety conflicts. Results from this pilot have great potential to inform policies and curb management strategies for managing a major deployment of AVs in a ridesharing capacity in the future.

1 https://github.com/CityOfLosAngeles/mobility-data-specification 2 http://www.sfexaminer.com/mayor-lee-strikes-deal-allow-uber-lyft-vehicles-use-sf-curb-space/

TAKE ACTION

State agencies:

• Empower local governments to

enact local curb management

policy.

Local governments:

• Gather data and evaluate how the

curb is being used, then consider

pricing models.

• Create permitting processes for

new mobility services.

• Implement parking changes.

7

OVERVIEW

New mobility services such as Transportation

Network Companies (TNCs), automated

vehicles (AVs), and dockless bikes and scooters

will disrupt traditional revenue streams, such as

parking, moving violations, and fuel taxes. As

communities seek to make investments

necessary to integrate new mobility options and

address competing demands for limited space,

cities and states should work together to create

new transportation funding mechanisms in

preparation for these changes while recognizing

that new pricing mechanisms can also be

utilized to achieve other policy goals such as

congestion mitigation, improved road safety,

lower emissions and reduced vehicle miles

traveled (VMT).

Pricing is a demand management tool, and

conversations about pricing should not focus

solely on the need for a new revenue source to

make up for the lack of dedicated

transportation funding. Revenues can and

should be used to increase access, support

transit, provide equitable distribution of TNCs,

dockless bikes and scooters, and meet long-

term congestion and safety goals.

Tools such as congestion pricing—adding a fee

to drive in certain areas or during certain times

of day—as well as tolling and variably priced

lanes offer ways to manage congestion,

incentivize off-peak travel and transit use, and

reduce emissions. Dynamically priced parking or

curb utilization fees can be implemented as part

of larger curb management strategies to

manage demand with urban delivery vehicles,

taxis, ridesharing vehicles, and more.

In addition, cities and states should consider the

behavioral effects pricing mechanisms can have

as they introduce new technologies and

transportation models. For example, pricing

strategies that penalize low or zero occupancy

vehicle travel can discourage AV users from

adding to congestion by programming empty

vehicles to circle the block to avoid parking fees.

Along the same lines, rather than using fees

simply as a revenue tool, governments have the

opportunity to optimize fee structures to

recognize the benefits of sharing over private

rides.

CASE STUDIES

Oregon began implementing the nation’s first

permanent road use charge system in 2015

after extensive evaluation and testing. In 2013,

the Oregon Legislature established mileage fees

as an official, permanent funding mechanism.

Starting in July 2015, the state began to accept

volunteers for the OReGO program, which

assesses a 1.5 cent-per-mile charge.

Participants pay fuel taxes at the pump as a

prepayment on the road usage charge, but

install a small device which tracks mileage, and

then receive a monthly invoice or credit based

on their mileage. The State of California ran a

POLICY MEMO

Pricing Mechanism for New Mobility

• State versus local control• User fees to support other policy initiatives

Pricing mechanisms on new mobility options present a new way to fund transportation but also an opportunity to manage demand and contribute to long-term goals.

8

Pricing Mechanisms for New Mobility


similar road use charge pilot program from July

2016 – March 2017, which tested six reporting

and recoding methods and confirmed the

viability of many aspects of a user-based

revenue mechanism.1

In 2015, Chicago became the first US

jurisdiction to collect a per-ride charge from

ride-hailing passengers—a $0.52 fee that

primarily goes into the city’s general fund. A

portion of the fee is allocated to the city’s

Accessibility Fund that provides incentives for

taxi and TNC companies to retrofit vehicles to

serve wheelchair customers. The fee increased

to $0.67 in 2017, to fund the Chicago Transit

Authority.2 Massachusetts is charging $0.20

cents per TNC ride, earmarked for

transportation projects, to help the taxi industry

adapt to new technologies, and to provide job

training. New York City may soon charge the

highest fees in the country at $5 per trip. This

fee will generate $605 million per year to repair

the subway system.

1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/road_charge/resources/final-report/docs/highlights.pdf 2 https://www.ssti.us/2018/02/chicago-to-use-tnc-fees-to-improve-l-service/

TAKE ACTION

State agencies:

• Give cities and regions the

authority to price.

• Establish VMT fees.

• Use pricing strategies manage

demand and fund sustainable

transportation.

• Advocate for user fees on new

mobility services that support

other policy priorities and

infrastructure needs.

Local agencies:

• Advocate for user fees on new

mobility services that support

other policy priorities and

infrastructure needs.

9

OVERVIEW

Virtually the only topic on which we all agree is

that the transportation infrastructure has

deteriorated and is in desperate need of repair.

Unfortunately, for too long departments of

transportation and local governments chose to

invest in a new asset because it provided short-

term political benefits. These investments are

often made at the expense of operation and

maintenance cost dollars needed throughout

the lifecycle of the new or existing facility.

We must immediately fix the transportation

system and fund needed repairs to an aging

infrastructure.

States and Congress should dedicate

transportation formula dollars to operation and

maintenance of existing facilities to ensure that

the system is sustainable and returned to a

State of Good Repair, is resilient, and works for

all users.

By requiring formula dollars to be prioritized for

operation and maintenance, we can ensure the

best use of limited taxpayer resources. It also

ensures that the foundation of the existing

transportation system works before building

additional infrastructure.

CASE STUDIES

According to the Metropolitan Transportation

Commission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay

Area, the region dedicates 87 percent of funding

to maintaining its transportation

infrastructure.1 Meanwhile, according to the

same report, the San Diego region spends 52

percent on operation and maintenance, while

Los Angeles and Sacramento invest 56 and 69

percent, respectively.

In a 2011 report from the Hamilton Project of

the Brookings Institution, researchers from the

University of California and the University of

Minnesota found that using formula dollars only

for maintenance of our roadways “would

provide an additional $12 billion annually for

maintenance and improvement.”2

A 2015 report in the Minneapolis Star Tribune

found that, of the State of Minnesota's $1.9

billion transportation budget for 2013, $700

million was allocated to maintenance while $1.1

billion was allocated to new construction.3

1 https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-invest/investment-strategies-commitments/fix-it-first 2http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/FinalBRIEF_KAHN_Feb2011.pdf 3 http://www.startribune.com/broken-bridges-ruined-roads-all-agree-something-must-be-done/287421581/?c=y&page=1

POLICY MEMO

Our Infrastructure: Fix It First

• Apply formula dollars to operation and maintenance first• No new construction or assets until existing facilities are in a state of good repair

Despite additional flexibility to use federal dollars, state departments of transportation continue to invest in new assets at the expense of maintenance. This leads to an increasing maintenance backlog. It is time to adopt a policy of “Fix It First,” and prioritize using formula dollars for operation and maintenance.

10

Our Infrastructure — Fix It First


Finally, a 2014 report from Smart Growth

America (T4America’s parent organization),4

found that between 2009 and 2011, states

collectively spent $20.4 billion annually to build

new roadways and add lanes to existing roads.

America’s state-owned road network grew by

8,822 lane-miles of road during that time,

accounting for less than 1 percent of the total in

2011. During that same time, states spent just

$16.5 billion annually repairing and preserving

the other 99 percent of the system, even while

roads across the country were deteriorating.

4 https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/repair-priorities-2014-transportation-strategies-to-improve-road-conditions-and-state-fiscal-outlooks/

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Advocate for a “fix-it-first”

approach in the next federal

reauthorization.

• Apply restrictions on federal and

state transportation formula

programs to prioritize these

dollars for operation and

maintenance. States acting now

can create momentum to change

federal policy!

State agencies and local governments:

• Use available discretion to

prioritize maintenance within the

existing formula programs. Lead

by example and put pressure on

the federal government to ensure

operation and maintenance is a

priority.

• Advocate and request policies to

support your efforts to prioritize

operation and maintenance.

11

Focus on Access to Destinations Rather Than Vehicle Speed

OVERVIEW

Connecting people to work is arguably the most important goal for our transportation system. Yet, unfortunately, communities generally do a poor job of measuring whether their transportation systems accomplish this goal. Further, as important as measuring jobs access is, only 20 percent of all trips and only 30 percent of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are to and from work. This means that 80 percent of trips (70 percent of VMT) are for our other daily essentials such as food shopping, doctor’s visits, and going to school.

Fortunately, new data and tools now exist that can assess how well transportation networks provide access to jobs and daily needs. These data and tools can be revolutionary for communities, enabling them to take a truly holistic view of their transportation networks and make more informed planning and project development and selection decisions.

Currently, many communities rely on blunt metrics like so-called level-of-service (LOS), a score that grades highways on speed. (LOS can be used for other modes, but the criteria are not comparable across modes.) Often these metrics are simplistically projected, based on future-year guesstimates, in order to justify highway expansions. Such projections are often wildly off, but even when this method is accurate it tends to move traffic quickly but fail to achieve the safety, livability and economic prosperity goals that projects aim to improve. As Gary Toth from the Project for Public Spaces wrote,

transportation professionals, “in search of high LOS rankings, have widened streets, added lanes, removed on-street parking, limited crosswalks, and deployed other inappropriate strategies” all because LOS has been the de facto standard over the last 50 years.1

LOS and similar mobility metrics do not provide a complete picture of challenges people face while trying to reach their needs within a reasonable period of time, nor do they provide enough information to help agencies make the hard decisions about what to build or where to locate land uses in order to best connect people to the places they need to go. In many settings, fast-moving traffic actually defeats these goals.

As a result of advances in data availability and analytic capacity, we now have better methods for making transportation and land-use decisions. Instead of relying simply on metrics around the speed of cars, communities can calculate how well citizens and shippers can reach their desired destinations—jobs, shopping, health care, school, public services, and much more—and then optimize their transportation networks across all modes of transportation. With such analysis, communities will be able to make more informed decisions about where to spend limited resources.

1 http://www.pps.org/reference/levels-of-service-and-travel-projections-the-wrong-tools-for-planning-our-streets/

POLICY MEMO

Focus on Access to Destinations Rather than Vehicle Speed

Providing states, regions and cities with powerful accessibility data and tools can help them better measure the destinations that their residents can or cannot easily reach. These analyses can let agencies more effectively plan, design, build and operate investments – and site land uses -- that will provide the most benefit for the least cost.

12

Focus on Access to Destinations Rather Than Vehicle Speed

CASE STUDY

Virginia

One of the most important decisions in transportation is the allocation of capital funds for projects. Five years ago, stakeholders were generally dissatisfied with the way the state of Virginia awarded such funds. Nearly everyone believed, with good reason, that the most cost-effective projects—those that advanced state and community goals at the best cost—were often overlooked for lower-quality, higher-cost projects. As a result, the legislature created SmartScale, which prioritizes projects based on policy-relevant criteria. One of those criteria is access to jobs, and another is access to non-work destinations. Stakeholders readily understood that these outcome-based measures would be useful in determining the merit of projects. Higher non-work accessibility, for example, is linked with lower needs for auto travel, and thus reduced personal and governmental costs, as well as emissions and congestion (Illustrated at right: VMT and access scores for sample neighborhoods in Virginia.)

Virginia DOT uses an off-the-shelf package, with data and analytic capacity, called Sugar Access, to score projects. It calculates the benefits from each project, then prorates all the projects on a 0-100 scale, for accessibility and other criteria. It sums the benefits from all of the criterion and divides by the cost to the state, resulting in scores that identify projects providing the most benefit for the money. Virginia has successfully completed two funding rounds in the SmartScale process, and is currently scoring projects submitted in a third round.

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Enact legislation which encourages andsupports local efforts to use betterdata, including by providing orsubsidizing the purchase of data.

• Enact legislation which sets goals andperformance measures related toaccessibility


• Engage state and federal lawmakers tosupport the use of accessibility data,including by providing or subsidizingthe purchase of data and setting goalsand performance measures related toaccessibility

• Prioritize local investments utilizingaccessibility measures

• Invest in accessibility data for local use• Collaborate with regional

governments and planningorganizations to develop accessibilitymetrics, purchase, and utilizeaccessibility data

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 20 40 60 80 100

Aver

age

daily

hou

sehl

d V

MT

Non-work access score (walking)

Household VMT

13

OVERVIEW

A transportation system is more than concrete and steel. It is a means to move people and goods safely and efficiently to their destinations. However, the way we plan for and assess our systems does not adequately take into account whether the system actually gets people and goods safely and efficiently to their destinations.

When used to engage the public and identify regional goals, performance-based decision-making can be game changing. Performance-based decision-making allows transportation agencies to define the extent of current challenges, show what is possible at various funding levels, and describe the trade-offs to be considered. And it can help build trust with the same public that’s frequently called upon to fund the system.

Transportation leaders can also better understand how much they can accomplish with current funds and how to get multiple benefits from one project.1 Ultimately, performance measures are a tool to engage the public in the difficult decisions transportation leaders have to make every day and develop a partnership

1 Learn more about performance management in the 2015 T4A report: http://t4america.org/maps-tools/performance-measures-report/

that can help identify priorities and create confidence among users of the system.

In 2017, T4A completed a national survey of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) use of performance measures. While 75 percent of the MPOs surveyed (78 of 104) used performance measures in some fashion in their last long-range plan, less than half (45 out of 104) actually used them to explicitly selectwhich projects to include in the plan. Less thanhalf of them actually created a system todetermine “whether or not this project willmove the needle on our overall goals.”2

While federal law (MAP-21 and the FAST Act) requires the USDOT and states to develop and implement performance measures, progress has been slow, and the required measures fail to consider such important issues as access to jobs and opportunity or equity.

While working to expeditiously act on the federally requires performance measures, local communities can go further and develop their own measures to better address local needs and better invest limited resources.

2 http://t4america.org/maps-tools/mpo-survey/

POLICY MEMO

Demonstrate and Achieve Success By Measuring Performance

Transportation agencies are adept at measuring their performance in terms of whether projects are on schedule and under budget, yet too often they do not measure the performance of their transportation system. To measure the impact of the system on people’s lives, agencies must measure outcomes such as supporting local economic development, protecting green space or providing access to jobs and opportunity.

14

Demonstrate and Achieve Success By Measuring Performance


CASE STUDY

Sarasota/Manatee, FL

The Sarasota/Manatee MPO in Florida conducted an extensive partner and stakeholder engagement process as part of its initiative to develop performance measures in response to Federal requirements. The MPO conducted stakeholder workshops for each of the six goal areas in the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan. During each workshop they introduced participants to the concept of transportation performance management and worked to make it more understandable. They also facilitated discussions to clarify their partners’ priorities for each goal area and how they see the transportation system contributing, and discussed data that partners might be able to provide to help with performance measurement.

These stakeholder discussions provided multiple benefits. They helped the MPO determine what performance measures would directly capture the most important regional priorities under each broad goal. For example, for the region’s ‘Livability and Environment’ goal, which was fairly broad, the MPO determined based on this outreach that they should focus on how to capture multimodal accessibility between neighborhoods and destinations, affordability, and resilience to flooding in refining their project scoring criteria. This input helped the MPO determine research needs to pursue and best practices from other

regions to replicate. The sessions also helped establish an ongoing regional conversation around transportation performance measurement that has created a solid foundation and contributed to a more knowledgeable group of stakeholders over time.

1

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Enact legislation that sets statetransportation priorities and setsproject selection based on howprojects promote those priorities.

• Appropriate funding to supportimplementation and pilotprojects.

Local governments:

• Set local performance targets andmeasures.

• Work collaboratively with theMPO and regional governmentsto develop regional targets andmeasures that support andenhance local goals.

• Advocate for state policies thatsupport local performancemeasures

2

15

OVERVIEW

The amount of funding available for

transportation projects has steadily declined

over the last several years, jeopardizing the

typical practice of designing and building

standard, industry accepted, large projects to

solve transportation challenges. Many states

see a practical solutions framework as an

attractive way to plan projects, which

represents a shift away from one-size-fits-all

solutions. The flexible, performance-based

approach emphasizes least cost planning and

requires clear and accurate definitions of the

problem to be solved. Using this approach,

planners and engineers can look network-wide

to find operational improvements such as

demand management or leaner designs with

smaller footprints. These strategies minimize

the need for expensive new highway

construction or other large-scale road projects,

allowing agencies to complete more projects at

lower costs.

CASE STUDIES

Virginia DOT: Smart Scale performance-based project scoring framework

In 2014, in response to a requirement from the

legislature, the Virginia Department Of

Transportation (VDOT) established Smart Scale,

a new performance-based project scoring

framework, to ensure that the state picks the

right transportation projects and makes the

best use of limited tax dollars. The legislation

explicitly established six factors to be used in

the scoring process, but tasked VDOT with

developing the measurement methodologies.

The factors include: congestion mitigation,

economic development, accessibility, safety,

environmental quality, and (in areas with a

population over 200,000) coordination with

land use.

The new scoring approach applies to all new

capacity projects that receive state funding

across transportation modes, which represent

about half of VDOT’s overall program (a

different scoring process applies to state of

repair projects).

VDOT first screens projects for eligibility based

on whether they meet an identified need in the

state’s long-range plan, then scores them to

determine their cumulative benefits in the six

factor areas. VDOT assigns up to 100 points to

each project under each of the six scoring

factors. VDOT then divides the total benefit

score by the cost requested from the state to

determine the final Smart Scale score and rank

compared other projects. This approach

encourages localities to make their projects

more competitive, either by identifying

POLICY MEMO

Practical Solutions: Creating a More Flexible Design Landscape

• Focus on problem solving rather than engineering• Establish agreed upon criteria to identify the most important and cost-beneficial

projects • Right-size major road projects

The limited amount of funding for transportation projects has delayed and even jeopardized transportation projects across the county. State and local policymakers and advocates should seek to implement flexible, performance-based (practical) solutions in order to make better use of limited funding.

16

Practical Solutions: Creating a More Flexible Design Landscape


innovative ways to accomplish project

objectives through smaller improvements or by

identifying local matching funds to offset state

funding.

VDOT has conducted three rounds of project

scoring using the new approach, and has made

minor adjustments to the scoring methodology

with each round. VDOT also continues to

conduct meetings with stakeholders to build

support and address concerns, including VDOT

staff across the Commonwealth, metropolitan

planning organizations, planning district

commissions, and counties, cities, and towns.

An example of Smart Scale in practice is the

reconstruction of an interchange on I-81 in

Bristol, VA. Virginia DOT and local elected

officials have been planning to reconstruct this

interchange since the 1990s, with cost

estimates over $100 million. Due to the cost of

the project it did not score high enough on the

Smart Scale criteria to qualify for funding. In

response, the VDOT staff reevaluated the

problem areas and designed smaller upgrades,

estimated at $21.2 million. The new project

scored high enough to secure funding, while

bringing most of the benefits of an entirely

redesigned interchange.1,2 VDOT is now moving

forward with widening and reconfiguring the

northbound on and off highway ramps.

Other states are pursuing similar approaches to

Virginia’s. For example, the Utah Legislature

passed legislation in 2018 directing the Utah

Department of Transportation (UDOT) to

develop a strategic multimodal vision, and

supports the development of new project

1http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/bristol/interstate_81_exit_17_interchange_improvements.asp 2https://smartportal.virginiahb2.org/#/public/applications/2017/hb2/view/F1-0000000264-R01

prioritization criteria.3 UDOT’s Deputy Director

will work with the Transportation Commission

to update prioritization criteria for highway

capacity projects, and for the first time, develop

prioritization criteria for transit projects.

3 https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0136.html

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Direct the State DOT to establish criteria

to prioritize new capacity projects in a data

driven, rather than political, manner.

• Direct the State DOT to look at practical

solutions to “right size” projects to get

most the benefits of transportation

improvements at a lower cost.


• Educate state elected officials on the

importance of establishing criteria to

prioritize new capacity projects in a data

driven manner and on directing the State

DOT to use practical solutions.

• Start building internal capacity through

staff training and hirings in order be able

to implement practical solutions and a

system that ranks all new capacity projects

based upon a set of criteria.

17

OVERVIEW

Communities are increasingly turning to a simple, yet revolutionary concept: build streets designed for everyone. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, these “complete streets” are “designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations.”1

While this may mean transportation agencies must adopt a new approach, investing in complete streets helps to improve safety and health outcomes, while boosting the economy, providing transportation options, and reducing transportation costs for all users.

In 2005, 35 communities adopted Complete Streets policies. Today, over 1,400 Complete Streets policies have been passed in communities across the United States, in rural areas, small towns, mid-sized suburbs, and big cities.

Despite this progress at the state and local levels, local governments often lack the resources to plan networks of safe streets or rebuild their streets. Partnerships and collaboration can help bridge these resource

1 https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/publications/what-are-complete-streets/

gaps. However, missing agreements between state and local agencies mean that transportation plans for state-owned facilities are often out-of-step with local plans.

A strong working relationship between local communities and state agencies can make the difference in turning the promise of a Complete Streets policy into the reality of a network of streets that better serve the needs of everyone.

CASE STUDIES

Massachusetts

A successful program in Massachusetts shows how the state can strategically invest in walkable communities by funding local complete streets plans and projects. State funds leverage local funding (and engagement) and strategic plans can align investments from all levels of government.

Through its Complete Streets Funding Program, developed under a legislative directive in the 2014 transportation bond bill,2 the Massachusetts Department of Transportation makes strategic investments in local complete streets projects through grants to qualifying cities and towns. This initiative had a huge impact on the advancement of Complete Streets throughout the state. As of early 2018, 146 municipalities in Massachusetts adopted Complete Streets policies, and 90 completed

2 MA Ch. 79 (2014) https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2014/Chapter79

POLICY MEMO

The State’s Role in Completing the Streets

• Turning complete streets policies into projects through state incentives andrequirements

By investing in local complete streets projects states can leverage local funding and be partners in transformative local projects to build walkable communities.

18

The State’s Role in Completing the Streets


prioritization plans. The program also directly funded 68 Complete Streets projects and indirectly contributed to countless more.3

In order to qualify for construction funding through this program, local governments must receive training on complete streets best practices, pass a local complete streets policy, and then make a strategic plan for complete streets projects. The state provides technical assistance for this planning. These eligibility requirements encourage local governments to make strategic investments and work toward a connected network of complete streets throughout their jurisdiction.

Baltimore, MD

The City of Baltimore, MD recently approved a transformative Complete Streets policy through a unanimous vote of the City Council.4 Councilman Ryan Dorsey, in collaboration with the advocacy organization Bikemore, worked for over a year to advance this new binding policy.

In 2010, Baltimore approved a non-binding Complete Streets policy, with no enforceable implementation steps. The Councilmember and advocates knew that more needed to be done to ensure the City prioritizes communities of color, low-income neighborhoods, and people who depend on walking, biking, or riding public transit to get around the city.

Beginning in 2016, supporters kicked off a campaign to craft the language of the new ordinance and advocate for its adoption. They attended over 50 stakeholder meetings resulting in a strong coalition that includes dozens of local, community-based organizations and national partners.5

3 https://smartgrowthamerica.org/app/uploads/2018/03/Best-Complete-Streets-Initiatives-of-2017.pdf 4 https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-ci-complete-streets-vote-20181015-story.html 5 https://smartgrowthamerica.org/app/uploads/2018/03/Best-Complete-Streets-Initiatives-of-2017.pdf

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Enact a complete streets policy.

• Appropriate funding to support

(and incent) local Complete

Streets planning and

construction.

State agencies:

• Develop a funding program to

support (and incent) local

Complete Streets planning and

construction.

Local governments:

• Enact a Complete Streets policy.

• Plan a strategic network of

Complete Streets projects.

19

OVERVIEW

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation

(FAST) Act, the current transportation

authorization, expires in 2020 and the Highway

Trust Fund—which is primarily supported by gas

tax revenue —is expected to become unable to

meet existing levels of spending in fiscal year

2021. These dual challenges, along with an

increasing federal debt, may make it difficult for

Congress to quickly establish new, long-term

transportation funding and policy. This situation

represents both an opportunity and a challenge

for states and local communities. As federal

funding and policy expire, states and local

communities must prepare to advance their

projects and priorities without the guarantee of

federal programs. At the same time, states and

local communities have an opportunity to

influence the next generation of federal

transportation policy.

Background

Congress approved the FAST Act in 2015 after

many years of debate and after the expiration of

a two-year authorization known as MAP-21.

The FAST Act mostly maintained the status quo

by authorizing federal transportation programs

for five years, though it also eliminated and

combined several programs, increased funding

for transit, and created new programs to

support expanding passenger rail. The law

expires in 2020.

The FAST Act also extended the solvency of the

Highway Trust Fund through fiscal year 2021 by

supplementing gas tax revenue with temporary

measures such as general fund transfers and

other revenue sources. In passing the FAST Act,

Congress chose to authorize additional

spending without additional revenue. The

temporary supplemental funding measures end

when the FAST Act expires. According to the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO), since 2008,

the trust fund has spent $103 billion more than

it has collected, and spending in 2018 alone is

expected to exceed revenues by $9 billion.

Additionally, the CBO projects that the gap

between revenues and spending in the HTF will

grow rapidly over the next 10 years, from $13

billion in 2019 to $25 billion in 2028.1

This time may be different: What states and

local communities want next?

In general, the current federal program of user

fees (gas tax) and formulas was designed in the

1950s to build the Eisenhower Interstate

Highway System, a system that has been

1 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651-outlook.pdf

POLICY MEMO

Federal Uncertainty: With Policy and Funding Expiring Soon, What Do We Want Next?

• Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act expiring• Highway Trust Fund (HTF) projected to become insolvent• Future of federal policy and funding is unclear

The federal transportation authorization expires in 2020 and the Highway Trust Fund will become insolvent in fiscal year 2021. As Congress begins debating new funding and policy, local communities must make their voices heard to develop the next generation of transportation policy.

20

Federal Uncertainty: With Policy and Funding Expiring Soon, What Do We Want Next?


completed. While the program has been

improved (to add transit to the Highway Trust

Fund for example), it has not fundamentally

changed. Today, our 1950s program is

fundamentally unable to meet the needs of both

repairing an aging system, meeting today’s

needs, and preparing for the new mobility

options of tomorrow.

Due to increasingly limited resources, it is now

more difficult than ever for Congress to

reauthorize transportation programs. This fact

presents an opportunity for policymakers to

consider a truly new, 21st century federal

transportation program.

State and local officials may want to consider

reforms to make better use of limited federal

dollars. For example, with the original interstate

system now complete, perhaps federal formulas

could be better utilized for maintenance as

opposed to building new capacity. (See the

separate memo on Fix It First.)

Members of Congress and the Administration

are looking for new ideas, and the

Administration’s proposal for an infrastructure

package makes clear that it is looking to state

and local governments to provide increased

funding and leadership.

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Develop policy goals now.

• Advocate for those federal

programs that support your goals

and, when appropriate, the

creation of programs to support

your goals.

• Focus on policy, yet advocate for

stable federal funding.

• Enact legislation that allows new

opportunities for state and local

ballot measures to fund

transportation projects.

• Enact, and enable local

communities to enact, policies

that will bring new local funding

sources to transportation.


• Work collaboratively across

jurisdictions to compete for

limited federal funds.

• Advocate for ballot measures

that expand existing tax or new

taxes to fund transportation

projects.

• Proactively develop new funding

sources to leverage limited

federal funds.

21

OVERVIEW

By 2020, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act will expire and the federal Highway Trust Fund balance is projected to run dry.1 When combined with the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce the federal share of funding for transportation projects, state and local governments must be prepared to shoulder more responsibility for investing in their transportation priorities as they may not be able to count on a reliable federal partner. Currently, 75 percent of funding for highways and transit is raised at the state and local levels.2 If the federal government makes less total funding available and requires a larger local match for federal funds, then state and local governments will need additional funding to competitively leverage available federal funds.

User fees and creative approaches

Since 2012, 31 states have enacted laws to dedicate revenue to transportation projects. Legislation has either raised new revenue through new taxes or increased existing tax rates, or permanently reallocated existing revenue to a special transportation fund.3 For example, taxes on fuel, vehicle fees, and tolls,

1 See section 3 of this booklet on federal uncertainty. 2 Pew Trusts http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/09/ff-transportation-report-horizontal-graphics_v3_123114.pdf 3 T4America http://t4america.org/maps-tools/state-transportation-funding/

represent the largest sources of funding for state transportation projects.4 Twenty-five states have increased fuel tax rates, while 20 states have adopted variable tax rates that automatically adjust based on the price of fuel, overall (CPI) inflation, or vehicle fuel efficiency. These variable rates are designed to keep up with future cost increases.5 States have also employed “user fees” to support transportation projects such as vehicle registration fees, licensing fees, and truck weight fees. As detailed in Section 1 of this book, state and local governments are also applying user fees to new mobility options. In addition, states have adopted a variety of unrelated revenues including general sales taxes and taxes on property transfers, hotel room rates, rental cars, and cigarettes.6

Ballot measures

Many communities are turning to voters to approve new investments in transportation infrastructure. Increasingly, a local or regional

4APIhttps://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Statistics/StateMotorFuel-OnePagers-July-18.pdf ; BTS https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-and-data/transportation-economic-trends/215951/transportation-economic-trends-2017-chapter-7.pdf5 ITEP https://itep.org/most-americans-live-in-states-with-variable-rate-gas-taxes-4/; NCSL http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/variable-rate-gas-taxes.aspx 6 See details at http://t4america.org/maps-tools/state-transportation-funding/

POLICY MEMO

State and Local Options In a Time of Uncertainty

• New User Fees• Ballot Measures• Fuel Tax Adjustments• Be Creative!

The future of federal investment in transportation is uncertain. This uncertainty will require state and local governments to become less reliant on federal funds to invest in their networks and local priorities, and to prepare for and integrate new mobility options.

22

State and Local Options in a Time of Uncertainty


tax measure approved by voters is a key source of funding for transportation projects. According to the Eno Center for Transportation, “ballot measures raise revenue for transportation measures in a wide variety of ways, the most popular are property taxes, sales taxes, and bonds”.7

However, six states: Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and West Virginia, do not allow local government ballot measure as a revenue generating tool for transportation.8

CASE STUDIES

Atlanta, Georgia

As the result of two sales tax measures approved by city voters in 2016, Atlanta will see a major expansion of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) regional transit system, more than a dozen new neighborhood greenways, and a completed portion of the BeltLine trail network.9 A 40-year, $0.05 sales tax will generate an estimated $2.5 billion for capital upgrades to the city’s transit network. A second measure, a five-year, $0.04 city sales tax, will allow Atlanta to purchase the remaining right-of-way for the one-of-a-kind BeltLine urban trail network that encircles the city along former rail lines. The measure will also provide $75 million for fifteen complete streets projects and funding for sidewalk upgrades and traffic signal optimization. Voters in the suburban portion of Fulton County outside the city of Atlanta approved a separate transportation measure for a five-year, $0.75 sales tax dedicated to a set of road and highway projects across the county.10

7 https://www.enotrans.org/publications-resources/transportation-at-the-ballot-box-2018/ 8 http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Measuring-Up-Data-and-Maps-.pdf 9 https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/mayor-s-office/projects-and-initiatives/tsplost-and-marta-referenda 10http://www.fultoncountyga.gov/tsplost/index.php/tsplost-info

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Grand Rapids and the surrounding communities have a growing, reliable transit network funded by voter-approved property taxes. The midsized city, with a regional population of just over one million, was a pioneer in the country to develop a bus rapid transit line. The Rapid, a regional transit agency, serves six cities across the region with 28 fixed bus routes and paratransit services.11

Since 2000, Grand Rapids area residents have voted four times to approve local property tax funding to support The Rapid. These voter-approved local property taxes cover a third of The Rapid’s operating budget. The growth in funding has allowed for an increase in service, and between 2000 and 2017, ridership grew from 4.5 million to 11.5 million.12

Denver, Colorado

In 2017, Denver voters approved a plan to add 32 miles of neighborhood bikeways, 33 miles of sidewalks, 17 miles of protected bike lanes, road repaving and bridge repair projects, and the development of a new bus rapid transit line. The total cost of $431 million will be paid from city property taxes.13

The new plan follows a successful measure approved by city voters in 2007 that funded projects such as sidewalk and pedestrian improvements on major corridors like Colfax Avenue, California Street and Tennyson Street; improved connections to new light rail stations; and construction of the Confluence Park Trail.14 The Denver region’s transit expansion, a project that is adding 122 miles of new rail transit lines, was only possible due to voters region-wide approved the FasTracks plan on the ballot in

11 https://www.ridetherapid.org/about-the-rapid 12 https://www.ridetherapid.org/about-the-rapid 13http://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/denver-department-of-finance/2017-go-bond.html; https://www.denvergov.org/electionresults#/results/20171107; https://www.denverpost.com/2017/10/22/denver-bond-package-november-2017-937-million/ 14https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/better-denver-bond-program.html

23

State and Local Options in a Time of Uncertainty


2004. That measure added a $0.04 sales tax dedicated to new transit construction.15

Manhattan, Kansas

In 2016, voters in Manhattan approved a special local sales tax to fund street repairs and projects to create safe routes to schools. The 0.2 percent sales tax will add $2 million a year for ten years to the transportation budget of this small university town of 50,000 located in northeast Kansas.16 Manhattan is using an objective measure of pavement quality to steer funds to streets in disrepair. Currently, 150 miles of city streets are below the acceptable pavement quality threshold.

Five percent of revenue is set aside to fund the city’s Safe Routes to School Program. A study completed in 2015 identified the most-needed sidewalk, crosswalk, and other street improvements to ensure elementary school students can get safely to and from school.17

15 http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_26 16 https://cityofmhk.com/2584/Street-Maintenance-Sales-Tax 17 https://cityofmhk.com/2066/Safe-Routes-to-School

TAKE ACTION

State and local legislation:

• States should authorize andencourage new ballot measuresas a tool to fund prioritytransportation projects.

• Local communities should clearlyexplain what projects will be builtwith new funding.

• State and local governmentsshould, where possible, align newrevenue with policy priorities (ex.user fees on TNC’s can be used toreduce congestion or invest intransit).


• Partner with communityconstituents to determine thefeasibility of allocating newrevenue to supporttransportation projects.

24

OVERVIEW

The transportation sector generates 28 percent of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States.1 In addition to GHG’s that contribute to climate change, transportation emissions produce additional harmful air pollutants. Though emissions rise and fall due to fluctuations in the economy, the price of fuel, mobility options, commuter preferences, natural disasters, and other related factors, the only way to truly reduce transportation emissions of all types is to invest in projects and communities that reduce vehicle trips. This may include walking and cycling infrastructure, transit, and transit oriented development, among others.

At the same time, addressing concerns over GHG represents an opportunity for states and local communities to lead the way in reducing GHG emissions, supporting clean transportation alternatives, creating new jobs, and funding new ways to solve transportation problems. It is also an opportunity for policymakers to design and build sustainable and resilient transportation systems and communities in the face of climactic risks like storm surges, wildfires, flooding, and tornados.

1 Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

CASE STUDIES

Regional Collaboration

Addressing emissions is often best solved through a multi-state or regional approach. The Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) is a regional collaboration of 12 Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States and the District of Columbia that, according to their website, seeks to “improve transportation, develop the clean energy economy and reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector.”2 The participating states are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

These states are working collaboratively between themselves, and with leading educational institutions, to develop and advance policy that addresses their shared goals. According to a 2015 report, a combination of clean transportation investments and pricing policies could reduce carbon emissions between 31 to 40 percent below 2011 levels by 2030, increase economic growth between $11.7 billion and $17.7 billion by 2030, and create between 91,000 to 125,000 jobs.3 The TCI has

2 TCI Background https://www.transportationandclimate.org/content/about-us 3 https://www.georgetownclimate.org/reports/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-transportation-opportunities-in-the-northeast-and-mid-atlantic.html

POLICY MEMO

Climate: The Impact On, And of, Transportation Infrastructure

• Building resilient transportation infrastructure and communities

• Mitigating transportation-generated emissions

The changing climate and increasing frequency of extreme weather are challenges to the sustainability of our communities and threats to the nation’s transportation infrastructure. Policy makers must pursue smart growth investments that will reduce vehicle trips, limit emissions, and build resilient communities.

25

Climate: The Impact On, and of, Transportation Infrastructure


worked with one of the authors of the report – the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown University – to develop a regional clean transportation program. Eight of the member states signed a joint statement in November of 2017 committing to a process to identify solutions and create a regional clean transportation program.

Smart Growth Policies - California

In other cases, states have determined they must act alone. California is a leader in connecting land use, planning, and transportation decisions with the goal of reducing the negative impacts of climate change. This approach utilizes all levels of government in the state to effectively coordinate and maximize impact.

One example is Senate Bill 375, enacted in 2008, which allowed the state to set regional GHG reduction targets and requires all regional planning agencies in the state of California to design regional development plans to achieve these reductions.4 This was a groundbreaking action that required communities within regions to consider how to align their land use plans to achieve shared goals and GHG reductions. According to the Institute for Local Government, “SB 375 builds on the existing framework of regional planning to tie together the regional allocation of housing needs and regional transportation planning in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle trips.”5

The California Air Resources Board recently noted that, “SB 375 has raised awareness of the importance of transportation planning as a means of shaping more livable and equitable communities…it has encouraged development of a new generation of regional transportation plans that include more creative thinking about smart growth and increasing mobility choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as

4 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm 5 http://www.ca-ilg.org/post/basics-sb-375

generate numerous public health, economic, mobility, housing, and land conservation benefits associated with a lower carbon future.”6

This California initiative shows that it is possible to integrate land use and transportation policy to respond to concerns about climate change and to reimagine how communities are built.

6https://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/final_staff_proposal_sb375_target_update_ october_2017.pdf

1

TAKE ACTION


• Advocate for policies thatmeasure and analyze GHGemissions from thetransportation sector.

• Proactively develop a climatestrategy and engage withstakeholders, including localcommunities, businesses, andcitizens.

• Align policies with climatestrategy goals.

• Support policies that promotetransit oriented development andallocate transportation funding totransit and multimodal options.

2

26

OVERVIEW

Housing and transportation are the top two expenses respectively for the average American household.1 High housing costs threaten the prosperity of communities by reducing the ability of people to live in those communities, thereby reducing the supply of talented workers to local and regional businesses, slowing overall population growth in a community, and limiting economic mobility. High housing costs in many communities across the country have also reduced national economic growth.2

Residents pushed out of their neighborhoods by rising housing prices may find cheaper housing elsewhere, but face longer commutes or fewer transit options. This tradeoff imposes steeper transportation costs in terms of car ownership and maintenance, higher transit fares, and lost productivity due to longer commutes. Transit-oriented development (TOD) and the more comprehensive transit-oriented communities (TOC) model are two ways to address long commutes caused by a lack of, or cost prohibitive housing options.

1 CNT https://htaindex.cnt.org/ 2Peter Ganong & Daniel Shoag, 2017. “Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined?,” Journal of Urban Economics http://www.nber.org/papers/w23609; https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/18/16162234/regional-inequality-cause

The concept of transit-oriented development is not new to the world of transportation policy, urban planning, or real estate. Cities across the country are leveraging transit investments to create TOD and generate economic growth. In the decade from 2000-2010, the Federal Transit Authority reports that 881 new stations were built, a 25 percent increase.3 As a result, the number of jobs located within ½ mile of transit rose significantly—24 percent in the same decade. The number of households in the transit shed, that same ½ mile distance, grew 8 percent. It is well known that homes are more valuable when located near transit stations with frequent service. The real estate website, Redfin, estimates that an increase of one point of a home’s transit score is the equivalent to a $2,040, or a 0.6 percent increase in home price.

Regions and neighborhoods with affordable travel options offer residents the lowest total cost burden. For example, Washington, D.C., ranks as the most affordable of the 100 largest metro areas in the United States when housing and transportation costs are measured as a portion of household income.4 Even though the region is plagued by high housing costs, an accessible and affordable multi-modal

3https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/FTA_Report_No._0050_1.pdf 4 CNT https://htaindex.cnt.org/

POLICY MEMO

How Communities Can Provide, and Improve, Transit Options While Reducing Housing Costs

• Use Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)/Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC)

• Develop policies that encourage TOD/TOC• Engage public and private sector collaboration to expedite TOD/TOC

development

Truly livable, prosperous, and sustainable communities provide all residents with affordable housing and convenient transportation options to access jobs and services. Transit oriented development and communities can help lower housing and transportation costs and communities should develop policies to support the implementation of these tools.

27



transportation system provides low-cost transportation to high-paying jobs.

TOD is a powerful tool used to leverage increased access to place, bringing economic development and focused growth. Transit investments also act as a stimulus for the surrounding area in terms of development leading to gentrification and displacement. Cities must be prepared to leverage their investments to create benefits for the community, bring new jobs and development, and protect against existing and future residents being priced out by rising housing costs and increased demand.

Transit-oriented communities (TOCs) are one method of using TOD as a tool. TOCs reflect a comprehensive strategy as compared to development driven by a new transit station. Creating compact, walkable places with access to transit means considering the context of the transit shed and input from stakeholders; from the close in ½ mile radius to the community and corridor extending 1-2 miles away from a single station. A sense of place creates demand for areas where people can live, work, and play.

Transit’s potential impact on a community can include bringing a vibrant mix of businesses, restaurants, shops, entertainment venues, and cultural attractions within walking distance of other amenities. However, a city’s large financial investment in transit should not just support those who own the land around a station

A TOC strategy allows the entire community to benefit by supporting households at all income levels, improving mobility, and making first and last mile connections to maintain ridership.

CASE STUDY

In 2015, Los Angeles Metro conducted a Demonstration Program to showcase the comprehensive approach to integrated development on Metro-owned land around stations, as well as measuring the impact of this

development strategy.5 Metro updated their Join Development Process, adding development guidelines, and built a TOC Toolkit of creative community development tools to support joint development projects. Eight demonstration sites were selected, and three are under construction as of February 2018: Sites at the intersection of the Expo and Crenshaw Lines, Surface parking lots adjacent to the Leimert Park Station, and the redevelopment of a city facility adjacent to the Fairview Heights Station.

Los Angeles established a TOC Affordable Housing Incentive Program in 2016 to encourage new, more affordable development and focus growth near transit stations.6 “The TOC approach goes beyond the traditional TOD model, which typically concentrates on a single development to focus on shaping vibrant communities around transit. By connecting communities, destinations, and amenities through improved access to transit, TOCs promote walkable and bikeable communities that accommodate more healthy and active lifestyles; improve access to jobs and economic opportunities; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”7

The city has received 112 project applications that total 5,571 units, as well as 83 tier verifications, a first step in denoting interest in submitting a project. The Program’s guidelines set a tiered typology for an overlay district based on the distance to a transit stop, the type of transit service provided, and the percentage of units made available to Extremely Low Income income, Very Low income, or Lower Income households.

Depending on the Tier designation, a project would be granted an increase of 50-80 percent in units permitted under existing zoning ordinances, as well as Floor Area Ratio increases. Other guidelines include parking

5http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/tod/images/factsheet_toc_demoprgm_2015-10.pdf 6https://planning.lacity.org/ordinances/docs/toc/TOCGuidelines.pdf 7 https://www.metro.net/projects/transit-oriented-communities/

28



maximum requirements per bedroom/unit, reduction in non-residential parking requirements, reduction in setback and open space requirements, increases in lot coverage maximums, and modest height increases (1-3 floors, with some step-back and transitional height requirements depending on the context).

TOD typologies are a helpful way to determine the different needs of different station areas. However, not all TODs can be regional centers nor can they all sustain high-rise buildings. Los Angeles serves as an excellent model.

TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Enact legislation allowing state

agencies or local governments

greater authority in developing

land around transit stations and

stops.

• Direct the State Department of

Transportation to serve as a

leader and resource hub in

working with local communities

on transit oriented development

and transit oriented communities.

• Replicate California’s legislation

(SB 743) and judge a

development project’s impact on

traffic via vehicles miles traveled

(VMT) and not level-of-service

(LOS).


• Look at the requirements around

parking. High parking minimums

are often the number one burden

to creating transit-oriented

communities and transit-oriented

development.

• Reform zoning laws to allow for

more mixed use and density

around transit stops.

29

OVERVIEW

Every decision made, every transportation

facility designed, whether it is an interstate

highway, bridge, the redesign of a state trunk-

line through a rural community, pedestrian and

bicycle paths, new transit or expansion in a

business district, all impact health, quality of life,

and well-being in a community. Unsafe streets

lead to car crashes and fatalities, vehicle

emissions contribute to poor air quality that in

turn exacerbates asthma and respiratory

diseases, and active transportation like walking

and biking builds opportunities for physical

activity into people’s daily lives, which can

reduce obesity, improve heart health, and

generally improve physical and mental health.

In 2015, the US Surgeon General and the

Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) issued a “call to action” to promote

walking and walkable communities. The reason

for the call to action is the Surgeon General and

HHS found that more Americans are getting

chronic, costly diseases like cancer, diabetes,

and heart disease because of a lack of physical

activity. One of the main culprits for the lack of

physical activity is that our communities are no

longer designed to encourage or even

accommodate walking. In order to address the

health crisis caused by our communities not

being designed for walking, the Surgeon

General recommended that “community design

should encourage developers to build

residences, worksites, schools, parks,

businesses, shopping districts, public transit

systems, and health care facilities within

walking distance of each other.”1

The benefits of a health conscious

transportation design and planning process

include:

1. Health, quality of life, and well-being

2. Reducing preventable death and injuries

3. Increasing physical activity

4. Reducing air pollution

5. Reducing noise pollution

6. Reducing inequalities in access and

health

1https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/walking-and-walkable-communities/call-to-action-walking-and-walkable-communites.pdf

POLICY MEMO

What’s Health Got To Do With It?

• Understanding how health and transportation affect each other• Working with stakeholders to bridge the gap between transportation and health• Educating the public on the importance of changing transportation policies and

areas of investment to improve health outcomes

“Everyone should have access to spaces and places that make it safe and easy for us to walk or wheelchair roll—whether in urban, suburban, or rural settings. This means that the people who design our cities and neighborhoods should include well-maintained sidewalks, pedestrian friendly streets, access to public transit, adequate lighting, and desirable destinations that are close to home.”

–Vivek Murthy, US Surgeon General, 2014-2017

30

What’s Health Got To Do With It?


CASE STUDIES

North Carolina

The North Carolina Department of

Transportation (NCDOT) recognizes that the

opportunity to improve health lies in the

department’s concept of “healthy

transportation.” As a result, the Healthy

Environments Collaborative was created in

2006 as an interagency partnership between

NCDOT, and the Departments of Health and

Human Services, Environment and Natural

Resources, Commerce, and the University of

North Carolina, School of Public Health. This

joint work group, in partnership with others

throughout the state, pulled together a

guidance document on integrating health into

the comprehensive planning process.2

NCDOT has consistently worked with health

professionals to integrate the concept of health

into the 25-year comprehensive transportation

planning process. Through collaborative efforts

NCDOT works with the Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS) to evaluate,

strategize and promote active transportation

(e.g., bicycling and walking) within communities.

In addition, HHS provides health indicator data

and performance metrics to NCDOT to evaluate

the prevalence of chronic disease so that this

information can be included in the decision-

making process for particular transportation

projects. For example, the state’s WalkBikeNC

plan included a health impact assessment on

three communities (urban, suburban, and rural)

in which the possible economic benefits from

improved health impacts were quantified.3

2http://www.eatsmartmovemorenc.com/HealthConsiderations/HealthConsiderations.html 3http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/planning/walkbikenc

Nashville MPO

Hundreds of thousands of residents of Middle

Tennessee—the region around the geographic

and economic center of the City of Nashville—

rarely get any physical activity, have limited

access to healthy foods, and experience high

rates of chronic diseases.4 While the Nashville

MPO, local advocates, and a few elected

officials understood the relationship between

active transportation and chronic disease, most

state and local elected officials failed to see the

connection. Culture change, especially in a

sprawling Southern region where 96 percent of

residents commute by driving, required a

paradigm shift in the way choices were made

about transportation.

To make the case for the health benefits of

walking and bicycling for transportation, the

Nashville MPO used the Integrated

Transportation Health Impact Model to predict

reductions in the burden of chronic diseases and

respiratory afflictions that could be expected

based on theoretical increases in minutes spent

walking or bicycling for transportation and

decreases in vehicle miles traveled.

This supplied residents of Middle Tennessee

with compelling data to make the case to invest

in bicycling and walking pathways. No longer do

advocates need to rely on abstract health

impacts of increased active transportation.

Leaders now have a reliable model that shows

how up to 123 lives could potentially be saved

per year due to a five percent decrease in

selected chronic diseases if the average Middle

Tennessee resident walked or rode a bike to get

where they are going for 22 minutes a day.

4 http://t4america.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Healthy-MPO-guidebook.pdf (Page 142)

31

What’s HEALTH Got To Do With It?


TAKE ACTION

State legislatures:

• Mandate health as part of the

environmental review of

transportation projects to

identify the potential health

impacts/outcomes associated

with a project.

• Advocate for prioritization and

funding of transportation

projects that provide active travel

mobility options.


• Encourage the use of health-

related performance metrics to

quantify the cost-benefits of a

proposed transportation project.

• Advocate for the inclusion of

health impacts/outcomes in

transportation policies to guide

the development of a sustainable

transportation system intended

to serve the long-term needs of a

diverse community.

32

Date post:	05-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times