I would be remiss if I didn’t note the launch of a campaign for a new federal transportation policy. The news about the launch of the Transportation for America campaign was noted on StreetsBlog, Greater Greater Washington, and a number of other sites.
As I have writtenbefore, the federal law setting transportation policy will expire next year, and this group has been created to lobby Congress about the new policy.
First, some history. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was a bold law, which set the mold for America’s surface transportation policy up to today. The act established a federal gas tax which funded a highway trust fund. States could apply for funds to build highways, and in general the federal government would pay most of the cost (recently, roughly 80%) so long as it helped complete their planned national network. The idea was simple, and it worked at achieving the federal goal: encouraging states to plan and develop a national network of limited access freeways. That policy has remained largely unchanged to today, over 50 years later. However, in that time we’ve built the entire planned freeway network. Meanwhile, our public transit systems have languished. The 1991 transportation bill known as “ISTEA” was a significant shift from the old mold. It required metropolitan planning and gave significant funding for transit improvements. However, since then applications for transit funds have far outstripped the limited funds available. Even if applicants succeed in getting transit funds, the federal government only paid roughly half the cost — or less. Federal bureaucrats, especially under President George W. Bush, have created elaborate applications for the limited funds and pushed specific ideological perspectives. The highway bills have also become politicized, laced with Congressional earmarks including the famous Alaska “bridge to nowhere.”
The old model is obsolete for two major reasons:the gas tax, and our transportation needs. First, the federal per gallon gas tax hasn’t been changed in over a decade. Thanks to inflation, and more recently, declining gasoline use thanks to high prices, the amount of money coming in simply isn’t enough for all our transportation needs. Second, we don’t need to build a national highway network: we have one. More highways are not the answer to metropolitan congestion. We must shift gears profoundly, to focus on highway maintenance, urban mass transit, and overall sustainability in transportation. This leads us to what the new campaign is advocating. Their five-point platform is as follows:
1. Build passenger rail between and transit systems within cities
2. Invest in a green future including clean vehicles, new fuels, public transit, walking and biking
3. Restore our existing highways, bridges, and transit systems
4. Stop wasteful spending on projects with little economic return
5. Save Americans’ money by coordinating transportation and housing
I’ve focused on the bare bones of the platform, but the short policy statement released this week explains the other related issues: jobs, climate change, and oil dependence. Their materials say little so far about how these values relate to how federal policy should be organized. Earlier this summer I discussed some of the various competing proposals, including an infrastructure bank, capital budgeting project, or some version of what we have now. Its weaknesses aside, the report completed by a study commission set up by the last highway bill suggests how the existing federal programs and departments might be streamlined and reorganized.
The conventional wisdom surrounding the bill — echoed in the Roll Call story below — is that the “road lobby” that kept money flowing for roads over the past 50 years remains strong in Washington. Regardless of the political opponents, the Transportation for America advocates will have their work cut out for them trying to curb the congressional love of the earmark and corral diverse, locally-based activists and convince them to get involved in high-level policymaking.
This November, supporters of a plan to construct a high-speed rail network in California could have something many thought they’d never see: $9.95 billion in cold, hard cash.
If approved by a simple majority on the statewide ballot, California Proposition 1A would provide $9 billion to construct a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and $950 million for other rail improvements in the state. Although a fraction of the total system cost, the money would provide leverage for federal matching funds (possible made available through a hypothetical Green-TEA) or private funds.
The entire plan would connect the state’s major cities with modern trains traveling up to 220 miles per hour over a new, 800-mile rail network. Although some complain the system tries to do too much — provide express service as well as local service to smaller cities — and anti-rail ideologues have bludgeoned the plan with usual complaints, the proposal has been unusually resilient to criticism thanks to high gas prices, concern over global warming, and frustration with traffic congestion. The 12-year-old California High-Speed Rail Authority has made good use of the planning money allocated thus far, producing slick online maps, animations, renderings, and videos, that show brightly colored yellow and gold trains whizzing through un-built tunnels, stations, and transit oriented developments (strategically located throughout the state).
The agency has posted a number of videos to YouTube, and this somewhat stiff 10-minute promotional film has been viewed over 300,000 times:
Is all this too good be true? Fearing the worst, one rail supporter predicted in 2007 a failure of leadership, failure on the ballot, or public apathy would be enough to stall the plan. The bitter diatribe provoked some young commenters to respond. “You may have enjoyed most of your life but mine is just starting!” wrote a 16-year-old, who added, “if you’re going to sit at your computer preaching how high speed rail is never going to work maybe you could be more proactive.”
At a national level, much work remains to be done to improve inter-city passenger rail service. Despite isolated success stories (such as the subject of a previous post, the Downeaster), as a whole Amtrak faces serious financial and infrastructure obstacles. (Described in detail in a recent article in the Next American City magazine.) As for high-speed rail, no serious national planning effort even exists. The U.S. Department of Transportation plan itself doesn’t even propose an nationwide, interconnected network, and only a few activists have begun to consider what it might look like.
Then again, what could be better to convince a skeptical nation of the benefits of high-speed rail than a successful, functioning state system? For now then, we wait for the decision of California voters on November 4th.
You’ve heard the buzz about “Lexus Lanes,” a new trend where tolls are adjusted in order to keep some freeway lanes flowing smoothly. They’re related to the idea of charging higher prices for parking, or even a congestion charge such as the one considered for New York City. It’s widely thought the lanes are unfair, since they allow wealthy drivers to zip past congestion. There’s only one problem with that view: a new study disproved it, arguing instead toll lanes are more just than the usual method for funding highways, sales taxes.
Two California professors considered the issue in a new article titled, “Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes.” The study found that the lanes were disproportionately used by middle and upper-middle income people, and that the tolls were regressive. So what’s the rub? It turns out the usual means for paying for transportation infrastructure, such as sales and gas taxes, are even more regressive than tolls. In fact, the study concludes that:
… if [sales tax] funds had been used to finance the express lanes, the study found, the poor and wealthy would have paid more. Middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers would have paid $26 million less each year than they paid under the current cost-distribution system, and the very poorest residents would have paid over $3 million more than they actually did under the current toll system.
They conclude that “Using sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionately favors the more affluent at the expense of the impoverished.” The authors propose two policies to overcome the remaining regressive character of tolls: giving out free travel credits to low income commuters, or using the funds to invest in public transit. The comparison is between tolls and general sales taxes, not gas taxes, but I suspect gas taxes would have been only slightly less regressive than sales taxes. (Because the poor own fewer cars and drive less)
Previously I also suggested we should consider other benefits of congestion pricing in the equation - greater transportation choice for all (including low-income commuters), less pollution, and perhaps a shift in behavior towards transit, carpooling, or other more efficient modes. I also discussed before some of the implications for another form of congestion pricing — raising parking meter rates.
What most frustrates me with congestion pricing critics is not their concern — not enough research has been done on equity, and it is a valid point to discuss — but how misplaced it seems given our skewed policies. Our society is riddled with deeply regressive policies. Sales taxes, gas taxes, and lotteries are all known to be regressive. We spend more than twice as much money subsidizing housing for the rich than we do for the poor. The poor disproportionately live near sources of pollution, and consequently have higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and other diseases caused by environmental factors. Meanwhile, our public transit systems, critical lifelines to opportunity for the very poor, are crumbling. In that light, adopting less-regressive congestion pricing and spending some of the revenue on transit service seems like a good decision.
Over a year ago I described Cape Town’s minibus shared van transit system, where licensed drivers provide shared rides along designated routs. At the time, I suggested such a system, common in many countries around the world, should be considered in the U.S. I was wrong — there are examples of similar service in the U.S., although here they’re generally antagonized by the very agencies dedicated to providing public transportation. Miami, Atlantic City, and San Diego have shared taxi, or jitney, services. However, like in so many other areas, New York city is the most notable case.
Since the late 1970s, thousands of unlicensed “dollar” vans (they now charge $1.50 or $2) have provided rides in several New York City neighborhoods. The industry got started in earnest during the 1980-81 transit strike, and have proliferated despite occasional crackdowns by authorities. In the 1990s, the MTA estimated some 5,000 feeder vans operated in the city, shuttling passengers to subway stations in boroughs where conventional taxis are hard to find. The vans often run in direct competition with busy bus lines, providing faster, more convenient service. Robert Cervero’s 1997 book Paratransit in America features a rare scholarly examination of these vans, illustrated with this map describing the parts of Broolyn, Queens, and The Bronx where the vans are active.
A Brooklyn friend confirms the Flatbush corridor is alive and well, New Yorkers are welcome to chime in about the others. Generally operated by Caribbean immigrants, criticism often focuses on ethnicity and safety since the unregulated vans do not have to be inspected or carry insurance. The MTA and city officials accuse the vans of “poaching” bus riders and unsafe operations, and have sought to curtail the vans through occasional crackdowns over the years. Nonetheless even critics concede the operators are providing transportation services with no public subsidy.
The latest crackdown effort came after a hit-and-run accident in Brooklyn involving a dollar van driver who fled the scene fearing arrest. In response, the city began a ticketing blitz and began the process of designing a sticker to clearly identify which of the vans are among the 279 officially licensed carriers, who are prohibited from picking up passengers on-demand by city rules. For now, at least, an uneasy truce exists. “Some van operators argue that one-size-fit-all standards are wrongheaded,” observes Cervero, who asks “Should everyone be forced to ride in vehicles that are fairly new, meet high liability insurance requirements, and have comfortable, padded seats, paying a premium fare for these provisions?” For the time being in most U.S. cities, the answer is yes.
One of the most interesting things that happened on my recent trip to the west coast occurred looking for a restroom. After pulling off I-5 south of Portland, Oregon, I missed the turn-in for a name brand gas station. I noticed another up ahead. My girlfriend Libby was skeptical. I peered ahead. “It has a green roof,” I noticed, “how bad can it be?” Pulling into the station we noticed solar panels, a vegetated bioswale, and sign advertising a variety of biofuels. Inside, a man sat typing on a laptop sipping a cappuccino in a cafe, and the racks were lined with organic foods. It was, as Libby observed, as if we had stepped into the future.
That’s how I visited the self-described “greenest gas station in America.” It turns out the exit was near Eugene, Oregon, and the station was one operated by the SeQuential fuel company. The station was a restored brownfield, the flagship location for the locally-owned biofuels company.
I’m generally skeptical of biofuels. Although they’re cleaner-burning, their net carbon production can equal or surpass fossil fuels. Nonetheless, SeQuential has taken pains to make their fuels as green as possible.
Using grease from Burgerville restaurants and Kettle Foods (makers of potato chips), as well as other sources, the company produces over five million gallons of biodiesel at their local plant. They boast their fuel recycles waste grease and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by “over 78%.” Their ethanol, sold pure or in blends with conventional gasoline, comes from Eastern Oregon family farmers, and they say growing “canola in rotation with wheat enables farmers to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use and to sustainable increase crop yields.”
SeQuential’s innovation is impressive. Until we can all plug our electric cars into a solar-powered grid, this might be the next best step.
Update: I found this amusing interview with one of the people behind the station on something called “Peak Moment TV,” also this blog has some information about the impact of biofuels on waste grease prices.
The much-awaited D.C. bike sharing program SmartBike has launched with ten locations in Downtown and Midcity neighborhoods. The public can sign up at SmartBikeDC.com for a card enabling them to rent bikes for up to three hours from these stations between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The annual subscription costs $40.
According to the program press release, “Plans to further expand the program are currently under way. DDOT is planning to place additional stations in other neighborhoods in spherical paths working towards the outer parts of the city.” It occurs to me a logical place to expand the system would be at Metro stations, something they already seem to be doing with the downtown locations.
Maybe it was during a 20-minute, 2-mile taxi ride from Georgetown to downtown D.C., where my average speed was 6 miles per hour. Or maybe it was during a lurching bus ride across K Street that took perhaps half an hour to traverse the same distance. During both trips, city street were jammed with large, single-occupancy vehicles, while buses, delivery trucks, and business vehicles were slowed to a crawl.
Washington, D.C. needs to get serious about downtown congestion. London congestion pricing has been a smashing success, with the Timesreporting today on an unexpected benefit: drastically reduced parking costs downtown. Not the mention the significant revenue for public transportation investment. Now officials in Manchester are contemplating a two-ring system that would charge motorists £1-3 to enter the city, depending on the time of day and location. While business types are skeptical (as they usually are) the only evidence they can marshal are opinion polls. That takes us to Paris, a city that has cut auto use by 20 percent in seven years — without London-style congestion pricing. When parking spaces were converted to a dedicated bus route, the residents of the Left Bank neighborhood of Montparnasse held a funeral, predicting the death of the neighborhood. Now the owner of a famous cafe admits “We’ve come to love it,” noting the bus brings workers and customers with improved efficiency. Elsewhere in the city, programs initiated by mayor Bertrand Delanoë are raising the cost of parking, creating dedicated bus and bicycle lanes, making tens of thousands of bikes available for rent, and “civilizing” the city’s most car-friendly streets by cutting lanes and expanding pedestrian space.
D.C.’s attempts are meager in comparison. Increased parking meter prices are only in effect in several neighborhoods. The tiny and highly-hyped bike sharing program still hasn’t launched despite media reports it would start in May. The networking of bicycle lanes and trails is fragmented and far shorter than other U.S. cities. DDOT’s experimental bus and bicycle lane on 9th Street downtown is too short and poorly marked and enforced to make much of a difference.
The solutions to congestion are at hand, all that’s lacking is the resources and political will to do them.
First, some history. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was a bold law, which set the mold for America’s surface transportation policy up to today. The act established a federal gas tax which funded a highway trust fund. States could apply for funds to build highways, and in general the federal government would pay most of the cost (recently, roughly 80%) so long as it helped complete their planned national network. The idea was simple, and it worked at achieving the federal goal: encouraging states to plan and develop a national network of limited access freeways. That policy has remained largely unchanged to today, over 50 years later. However, in that time we’ve built the entire planned freeway network. Meanwhile, our public transit systems have languished. The 1991 transportation bill known as “ISTEA” was a significant shift from the old mold. It required metropolitan planning and gave significant funding for transit improvements. However, since then applications for transit funds have far outstripped the limited funds available. Even if applicants succeed in getting transit funds, the federal government only paid roughly half the cost — or less. Federal bureaucrats, especially under President George W. Bush, have created elaborate applications for the limited funds and pushed specific ideological perspectives. The highway bills have also become politicized, laced with Congressional earmarks including the famous Alaska “bridge to nowhere.”
I’ve focused on the bare bones of the platform, but the short policy statement released this week explains the other related issues: jobs, climate change, and oil dependence. Their materials say little so far about how these values relate to how federal policy should be organized. Earlier this summer I discussed some of the various competing proposals, including an infrastructure bank, capital budgeting project, or some version of what we have now. Its weaknesses aside, the report completed by a study commission set up by the last highway bill suggests how the existing federal programs and departments might be streamlined and reorganized.
Since the late 1970s, thousands of unlicensed “dollar” vans (they 
