A rendering of CPMC's proposed 555-bed hospital and medical office building at Van Ness and Geary. Image: Rebuild CPMC

Nearly 10,000 additional cars [PDF] are predicted to travel every day to the gigantic Cathedral Hill California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) at Van Ness and Geary after it opens in 2016. While the city is negotiating how much the institution will pay to help mitigate the impacts those cars will have on Muni and pedestrian and bicycle safety, some advocates argue that won’t make up for a fundamental flaw: The medical center will include too much parking.

The 555-bed hospital and medical office building will include more than 1,200 parking spaces. CPMC projects half the visitors and employees to come by transit, foot or bike. But based on CPMC’s track record at three of its existing sites in the city, Marlayne Morgan of the Cathedral Hill Neighborhood Association doesn’t think that’s likely.

CPMC’s transit incentives for employees aren’t enough, says Morgan. “Even with giving $100 to take public transit, they can’t get 50 percent of their employees out of their cars,” she told the SF Board of Supervisors at a four-hour hearing last week on the transparency of CPMC’s negotiations with the city. “There’s no way to mitigate the impact of this facility unless you take it down in size.”

Cathedral Hill’s staff will be comprised largely of current CPMC employees at its other San Francisco locations, just under half of whom live outside the city, according to the transportation analysis in the CPMC’s Institutional Master Plan [PDF].

“They’re taking three hospitals and putting them in one location,” said Morgan. “It’s hard to believe that this is going to change the patterns at Cathedral Hill.”

Trip mode share at three existing CPMC campuses, from the Institutional Master Plan PDF

CPMC spokesperson Kevin McCormack said employees can get “up to $230 a month in pre-taxed pay to buy commuter checks for use on all Bay Area mass transit from MUNI and BART to Caltrain and van pools,” seemingly a reference to federal tax benefits that also provide incentives for employees to drive to work. (In fact, as of January 1, 2012, the maximum monthly pre-tax benefit for parking will be $240, while the maximum benefit for transit will drop back down to $125.)

“We also have shuttles that run between campuses and to and from Muni and BART stations so staff don’t have to bring their cars into the city or into downtown,” McCormack added. He couldn’t provide information on the parking benefits CPMC offers.

Ultimately, to reduce traffic generated by a specific facility, sustainable transportation advocates say that planners must reduce the amount of parking. “Parking spaces – particularly commuter or visitor spaces – are like magnets for cars,” writes Jeffrey Tumlin, a principal at San Francisco-based Nelson/Nygaard Associates, in his upcoming book Sustainable Transportation Planning.

The Cathedral Hill center would be more transit-accessible than the existing CPMC sites. Its location at the intersection of two BRT lines set to open on Van Ness and Geary in 2016 could lure more employees to take transit. But that also makes the high volume of parking all the more superfluous and the traffic generated all the more harmful to transit performance. As Livable City Director Tom Radulovich told Streetsblog last year, “If you’re going to maximize damage to Muni’s network, that’s where you would do it.”

While no bicycle improvements have been promised, CPMC could help fund an SFMTA study under the agreement being negotiated with the city. But unless protected bikeways are added to streets like Post, Sutter, and Polk, few commuters are expected to bike to the center.

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, which is pushing for a protected bikeway on Polk Street in its Connecting the City campaign, said in a statement that it “is looking to the CPMC Cathedral Hill to really embrace bicycle transportation for its staff and visitors. Supporting the creation of a top-notch bikeway on Polk Street will benefit the hospital, the neighborhood and countless destinations and people throughout the city.”

The Cathedral Hill center is set to begin construction next year and open in 2016.

Obama announcing the American Jobs Act. Photo: SHRM

Specifically, they lay out the numbers:

• $27 billion for rebuilding roads and bridges
• $9 billion for repairing bus and rail transit systems
• $5 billion for projects selected through a competitive grant program
• $4 billion for construction of the high-speed rail network
• $2 billion to improve airport facilities
• $1 billion for a NextGen air traffic control system

It’s encouraging to see the words “upgrading” and “rebuilding” when it comes to roads, indicating that the administration might be adhering to a fix-it-first approach to transportation spending. But, as we mentioned last week, the bridge Obama highlighted recently as a prime target for jobs-bill money isn’t actually in need of repair — transportation officials just want to widen it to allow more traffic to go through faster.

Certainly, the administration has shown a desire to attack the maintenance backlog in the country, but that doesn’t guarantee that highway expansions and sprawl projects won’t get a slice of the “rebuilding” pie.

That said, it’s good to see the plan includes $5 billion for projects funded through a competitive grant program (think TIGER). And it also hits a somewhat more equitable balance between rail/transit and roads than Congressional transportation bills generally do.

The president’s plan also includes an infrastructure bank, funded with $10 billion seed money. The administration says projects will be evaluated on the basis of how badly they’re needed and how much they would help the economy.

Some have said over the last couple of weeks that the I-bank concept is in trouble after the GOP pounced on the Solyndra loan story, in which a solar company filed for bankruptcy soon after receiving half a billion dollars in government-backed loans. Experts say the infrastructure bank proposal would vet projects well and protect taxpayers from risk.

According to the 2011 Urban Mobility Report, released today by the Texas Transportation Institute, this delay cost the average D.C. driver $1,495 once you factor in lost productivity and increased trucking times. In Chicago, it’s $1,568. L.A., $1,334.

Every year, TTI puts out their Urban Mobility Report, and every year we criticize it for its autocentrism. After all, its sole measure is how fast a vehicle can speed down a given mile of roadway. Maybe your city is dense and friendly to pedestrians and bikes, so that it’s easy to glide past the automobile gridlock on your short commute to work. Or maybe transit provides an excellent and affordable alternative to traffic jams. None of that matters to TTI. If someone, somewhere, is sitting in traffic, that’s all that matters. All other measures and modes of urban mobility are ignored.

TTI doesn’t bother to figure out how much time is saved if one avoids that congestion by taking transit, but they do examine how much time transit riders save drivers by taking vehicles off the road.

How public transportation reduces delays for drivers, 2010. Source: 2011 Urban Mobility Report, via APTA.

If there were no transit, the country’s drivers would be facing an additional 796 million hours of traffic delay. (Take that, drivers who grumble when their gas tax “user fee” funds mass transit!)

“Operational treatments” like ramp metering, traffic light timing, and removing crashed vehicles from the road have become much more effective in the last 20 years but still don’t come close to the savings provided by transit, saving about 40 percent as much as transit in terms of hours of delays, fuel, and costs.

Still, in TTI’s examination of congestion relief strategies, public transportation is barely alluded to and never mentioned outright, while operational treatments get significant attention. There is a shout-out to smart growth, or “denser developments with a mix of jobs, shops and homes, so that more people can walk, bike or take transit to more, and closer, destinations.” They also suggest telework and, of course, adding capacity.

TTI warns that congestion is only as bad as it is because the economy is still sluggish. We can expect a rapid worsening of the situation when the economy rebounds – 3 more hours of delay by 2015 and 7 hours by 2020, per commuter, with costs rising from $101 billion to $133 billion, more than $900 for every commuter, and enough wasted fuel to fill more than 275,000 gasoline tanker trucks.

I guess it’s time to really get to work on expanding and improving transit service then; right, TTI?

When it comes to public transportation, residents of the city of Detroit and suburbanites live in a state of government sanctioned apartheid. They ride fully separate systems, with fully separate sets of maps and noncooperating administrations.

Can Detroit and its suburbs cooperate on a regional transit system in order to draw $300 million in federal funding for light rail? Photo: DrPenna.com

Here, urban-suburban tensions are so intense, multiple tries over decades have failed to produce a unified regional transit system. Instead, the suburbs are served by the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) and the city of Detroit is served by the Detroit Department of Transportation.

And it’s not just a logistical nightmare for riders, it’s a major obstacle to the region’s economy. There is no regional vision for transit, because Detroit — unlike every other major city in the country — still lacks a regional transit system.

But now the federal government is stepping in to help remedy the situation and it’s holding a $300 million bargaining chip. The Federal Transit Administration recently called experts together to brainstorm ways to improve and unify Detroit’s transit system, and Crain’s Detroit reports that FTA chief Peter Rogoff has followed that event up with closed-door meetings to help bring about regional solution. Apparently, the federal government has some concerns about turning over the grant funds needed to realize Detroit’s Woodward Corridor light rail plans with the transit system in its current state.

For one, the light rail line is intended to extend beyond the city limits into some of the northern suburbs.

“[An RTA] has to happen for the project to achieve its broader utility,” Rogoff told Crain’s. Rogoff also told Crain’s he was concerned that Detroit would raid money from bus transit service in order to support the rail expansion, which is prohibited under the terms of the federal transit grants.

Meanwhile, like most transit systems across the country, both of metro Detroit’s are suffering. But the redundancies that are part of Detroit’s two-system solution only worsen the landscape for the region’s carless masses.

The city of Detroit, for example, has no dedicated revenue stream supporting transit operations. The service is supported by the city’s general funds — also an exceptional case among major cities.

Meanwhile, job opportunities and essential services don’t stop at the city borders. Job sprawl has intensified in recent years. More than three-quarters of the region’s jobs are located at least 10 miles from the urban core. Meanwhile, fully one-third of Detroit households lack access to a private automobile.

“They’re depending on the buses to get them where they need to go,” said Owens. “They’re losing jobs, because if they can’t get to a job on time, they’re going to lose that job.”

Fortunately, however, in addition to federal calls for a regional transit system, unification has supporters in high places at the state level as well. According to Crain’s, the push for a regional transit system is echoed by Governor Rick Snyder. His efforts have produced a level of support, as well, among key officials in the suburbs and city. Still some disagreements remain, however, about the governing structure of the proposed regional agency and the terms of the agreement with union employees.

Ultimately, however, it was this kind of squabbling that killed promising efforts at integration last year and in 2005. Developing a cohesive transit agency or regional vision in Detroit has without a doubt been complicated by its history of racial segregation. Detroit is roughly 82 percent African American, which makes it America’s blackest major city. By maintaining separate transit systems for its suburbs and city, the Detroit region maintains essentially segregated transit service.

“Race is definitely an underlying issue with any regional efforts in this region,” said Megan Owens of the local advocacy group Transit Riders United. “There’s a great deal of mistrust between city and suburban leaders. There are some folks out in the suburbs who still are afraid of transit because they think black folks from the city are going to take the bus out and steal their television.”

But Owens is hopeful a regional transit system could help heal some of those scars. “It’s really easy to maintain misperceptions of what people are like if you live in a bubble and then you get in a metal box and drive to an office building where everyone looks like you,” she said.

Governor Snyder is planning an address on the issue in October, Owens said. She is hopeful a new system will emerge before the end of the year.

Detroit is counting on about $318 million from the feds in order to build the $528 million project. Rogoff has indicated that the lack of a regional transit agency would not necessarily preclude the city from receiving any federal funds. But he did indicate he’d like to see progress toward a regional system when the funds are awarded.

Owens and other transit advocates are cautiously optimistic that this time will be different.

“The fact that there is such interest and momentum from the governor [and] the Detroit City Council really does give me hope that we can break past these barriers and some of the self-centered politics that have blocked it in the past,” she said.

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

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

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

- Northwest Indiana Regional Bus Authority, Hammond, IN

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

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

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

- Centre Area Transportation Authority, State College, PA

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

- Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY

This proposed 30 percent cut in funding would cause an approximate $7 million reduction in service, which equals almost 1 million revenue miles annually, affecting 3 million passengers. This would cause a loss of approximately 50 jobs within our agency.

- San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego, CA

Overall, “20,000 fewer buses and trains and paratransit vehicles will be purchased, causing breakdowns and overcrowding,” APTA President Bill Millar said on a telephone call with reporters yesterday. “These proposed cuts would impact a total of 46 major expansion projects in 18 states.”

Already, many transit systems have been cut to the bone. Amalgamated Transit Union President Larry Hanley told reporters about the elimination of entire transit systems in Clayton County, Georgia and painful cuts in Albany, New York and Lorain, Ohio, where “buses have been laid up in lots because transit systems don’t have the money to operate them.”

“We’re already in a crisis throughout the United States in transit,” Hanley said, “and Congress’s suggestion that we can take a 30 percent cut in the existing program is preposterous.”

Pat Scully of Daimler Buses testified from the point of view of the leading manufacturer of city transit buses in North America. “We’re manufacturing less and less as each day goes by,” he said.

Scully said the six-year proposal by the House would cost jobs but also said that the constant extensions have hit the industry hard.

“These temporary extensions, and the one-third cut that is proposed in investment spending, do nothing but add indecision and uncertainty for our customers and our markets,” Scully went on. “Indecision and uncertainty have led to reduced order intake for the manufacturing base over the past two years. We are all operating at lower production output and employing fewer people now — without the one-third cut proposed.”

A free Muni for youth rally drew more than 150 people to the steps of City Hall. Activists said students and working-class families shouldn't have to choose between buying groceries and a Muni pass. Photos by Bryan Goebel.

A broad coalition of community groups, youth leaders, transit advocates and elected officials called on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency today to initiate a three-year pilot program to give young people ages 5 to 17 free Muni passes. The program would cost an estimated $7 million a year and result in a 4.6 percent increase in Muni ridership.

“We believe that transportation is a human right,” said Alicia Garza of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER).  “What we’re seeing is that over the last few years the cost of (public) transportation has increased, and service and access is decreasing. Over the last two years, there’s been more than a 100 percent increase in the cost for Fast Passes for youth.”

“For families that are struggling to survive in San Francisco,” she continued, “that also means an increase in costs when wages are not increasing, when the number of jobs in San Francisco is not increasing, and when resources for public services, including schools, are not increasing. For families with more than one child this translates into an additional burden that’s being placed on working-class families and working-class communities of color in our city.”

Earlier this year, the city adopted a one-time program to give free Muni passes to 12,000 low-income students but supporters said the demand far exceeded the supply. A Muni Youth Pass currently costs $21 and is free for kids under 5. A recent survey showed that 70 percent of students in the San Francisco Unified School District rely on public transit at a time when school bus service has been dramatically cut. The number of low-income students in the district is also high, with an estimated 61 percent taking part in the school lunch program.

"It's one critical step we can take to improve the quality of life for all families in the city, and to support and encourage a new generation of transit riders for our future," said Supervisor David Campos, who added that New York City and Portland have similar programs.

"Back when I was in high school, I used to depend on the 19 bus line to get to school, and I also took the 30 Stockton to volunteer in Chinatown, where most of my friends are," said James Ng, a freshman at SF State who volunteers at the Chinatown Community Development Center. "Over the last two years, the price for bus passes has gone up 110 percent, and that has made it hard for my friends and family to find the money to get bus passes. I know some who aren't buying bus passes because it cost too much."

“Muni has become too expensive and the services that we depend on are becoming out of reach for us financially,” said Leah LaCroix, the chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission. “No matter what school you go to, and what your family’s income level is, or where you live, you should have access to transportation and it should be affordable and you should be able to go from your school to your after-school program to your game and wherever you want to go in the city. Free Muni does this for young people.”

The three-year pilot program, backed by six members of the Board of Supervisors, and SFMTA Board Director Joél Ramos, would be paid for “using a combination of private contributions,” “Muni efficiencies,” and “funds from several different public agencies.” While the pilot is running, those agencies would work to develop a long-term program.

Supervisor David Campos introduced a resolution [pdf] at the Board of Supervisors today calling on his colleagues to support the pilot. Ramos said he planned to get the matter agendized at an SFMTA Board meeting October 18th. He told Streetsblog one option to pay for the program could be extending parking meter hours.

“By actually generating revenues, the 7 million dollars that it might cost per year, we actually reinvest in the overall system and we make it so that parents don’t have to park anymore because their kids were on transit, so they can take transit,” he said. “That works for making parking available for people who really need it. That’s why this is a win-win.”

Paul Rose, a spokesperson for the SFMTA, said the agency is “working with the Budget Analyst to develop a comprehensive report that looks at not only what our revenue impact would be, but at what type of expenditures would be necessary to provide things like: additional vehicles, more graffiti abatement programs, or additional Clipper administrative costs, etc.”

The agency is currently facing a $23 million deficit, and recently scrapped a staff proposal to raise parking fines to help close the gap.

Thea Selby with the San Francisco Transit Riders Union said the pilot and long-term program would also include an education component for young people, and she praised POWER and other organizations working to make free Muni for youth a reality.

“They’re not just interested in giving a pass to youth. They want to train them and turn them into the transit first citizens of the next generation,” she said.

The pilot is being supported by a number of elected officials, including Supervisors Campos, John Avalos, Jane Kim, Malia Cohen, Eric Mar and Ross Mirkarimi. Organizations backing it include the Chinatown Community Development Center, Jamestown Community Center, Filipino Community Center, Public Advocates, POWER, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, the Coalition on Homelessness, Urban Habitat, SF Transit Riders Union, MORE Public Transit Coalition and many others.

“If we believe, as a city, that public transportation is a right and not a privilege, today we take the first step in making that a reality for San Franciscans who need it the most,” said Garza.

Supervisor Jane Kim was the first to sign a petition to support free Muni passes for youth.

Sen. Tom Coburn has an axe to grind with bicycle safety. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

It’s unclear how we went from a House determined to cut spending levels by more than 30 percent to a House unanimously committed to passing a bill with current spending levels. It’s unclear even that this unanimous vote plan will work. Republican party discipline isn’t what it used to be, what with the Tea Party revolt just loving to accuse House Speaker John Boehner of being a tax-and-spend liberal.

However, rumor has it that House Republicans are being told that the extension’s spending levels don’t change the appropriations levels the House is willing to approve, and that’s $27.7 billion for the year for highways and $5.2 billion for transit. So if the extension authorizes $19.8 billion for highways for the first six months and $4.2 billion for transit, that’s fine: It just means that for the whole second half of the year, highways would only get $7.9 billion and transit would only get $800 million. Those are deadly cuts, but it appears that transportation leaders are putting off that fight till later in order to pass an extension now.

Meanwhile, if the extension bill doesn’t pass the House by unanimous consent, the House will need to follow normal rules of order to pass it by majority vote. That means it’ll need to wait a full 72 hours between the posting of the bill and the vote, and that would mean a Wednesday vote. It could also open the door to a messy amendment process.

Speaking of amendments: In the Senate, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn is planning to file an amendment to cut Transportation Enhancements from the six-month extension. It’s good news that he’s doing it as an amendment and not a hold on the bill, since a hold is a unilateral move to force the Senate to utilize a much more time-consuming process to vote on the bill. His amendment will likely fail, since many senators who would normally vote with him to cut bike/ped funding are committed to passing a clean extension, with no amendments.

If Coburn’s amendment does fail, he can lose graciously — or he can try to filibuster. It’s unclear whether he plans to do that. While the House is hoping to have 100 percent support for the bill, insiders fear that in the Senate, the bill could fall short of the 60 percent majority it needs to overcome a filibuster.

The Senate hasn’t yet introduced a (six-month) surface transportation and (four-month) FAA extension bill to replace the four-month surface transportation extension passed by the EPW Committee last Thursday. It won’t go through the same process – the extension will be filed as an amendment attached to an enormously popular bill that House Majority Leader Harry Reid has reportedly been holding on to for just this purpose – as a vehicle to get more controversial measures passed by adding them as amendments. The bill itself deals with sanctions against Burma, a cause dear to Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s heart.

So, the transportation extension will be an amendment attached to the Burma bill, and Coburn’s TE cut will be an amendment to the transportation amendment. Clear enough?

Meanwhile, according to our sources, Sens. Boxer and Inhofe of EPW agree that any amendment – even to the six-month extension – would be a violation of their delicate bipartisan deal on the two-year reauthorization. They require a clean extension.

For Minneapolis residents along the Hiawatha rail line, that convenience is worth tacking on an additional 10 percent to housing prices. Chicagoans near the Midway transit line are willing to pay about 19 percent extra. And in Portland, folks are willing to fork over an additional 31 percent for an abode within one-quarter mile of a rail transit station along the Westside extension line.

Selling prices for homes within 1/2 mile rose 31 percent after the addition of light rail in Portland, according to one study. Photo: Wired Autopia

The Center for Housing Policy recently completed a comprehensive review of the existing research on housing prices and proximity to rail. According to dozens of studies over decades, a rail station within a short walk can add 6 to 50 percent to home values.

The center’s analysis shows, however, that not all rail lines are created equal, at least when it comes to housing price appreciation.

Some important considerations for potential investors: Is the station walkable or is it located near highway infrastructure? Does the rail service operate frequently and offer service to desirable destinations? What is the strength of the regional housing market?

All of these factors are important. But ultimately they point to a central conclusion: the premium buyers are willing to pay to live near rail transit correlates roughly to how much accessibility the transit service offers relative to other modes. In a congested city with a strong housing market and robust transit system — New York City, for example — rail transit proximity results in the largest premiums. Meanwhile, weak market cities with poor transit and relatively traffic-free highways — like Buffalo, New York — may see little price appreciation around rail transit stops. In these cases, rail transit has little inherent advantage over highway travel.

Other interesting insights from the study:

• Apartments and condos generally enjoy greater price appreciation with proximity to rail transit than single family homes. In a 2008 study of San Diego, the premium was 17 percent for condominiums, but only 6 percent for single-family housing. Researchers theorize this is because multi-family housing dwellers (generally single) have less complicated transportation needs than their single-family counterparts (often families).
• Some evidence shows that appreciation is greater in higher-income neighborhoods. However, other studies have shown that price appreciation also takes place in low-income neighborhoods, indicating that the value of transit is capitalized into housing prices across income levels. For example, after plans were announced for Atlanta’s Beltline rail transit corridor, housing value increases were observed only in the lower-income portions of the route on the south side of the city.
• Price increases are not generally observed for bus transit because they lack the permanence of rail transit. However, fixed bus-rapid-transit routes, like the bus-only corridors in Pittsburgh, did offer a measurable appreciation effect on nearby housing.
• Building transit stations near freeway facilities can counteract the livability benefits of transit and lessen or even eliminate housing price appreciation.
• Housing price appreciation was not found to take place near park-and-ride rail transit facilities, perhaps because of the nuisance caused by increased traffic.
• There is little information about how proximity to rail transit affects rent prices.

In general, study authors found, communities can expect proximity to rail to add up to about 10 percent to nearby home values. Researchers also found that home values generally continue increasing as the value of the new service becomes more widely understood.

The Center for Housing Policy recommended that cities undergoing rail expansion take care to maintain affordable housing by stations. The group also recommended that public agencies attempt to capture some of the value created by transit investments through tax increment financing and use that money to support the rail expansion.

If SAFETEA-LU isn't extended on time, over 5,000 transit grants could be at risk. Source: FTA

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is meeting tomorrow to discuss a four-month extension to the current transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU. The map above is from a short but powerful document the Federal Transit Administration put out this week explaining “The Impacts of Failing to Extend Surface Transportation Funding” [PDF]. How much transit work would grind to a halt in your state without an extension?

In addition to the 5,600 transit grants, covering both capital projects and operations, a failure to extend SAFETEA-LU on time would jeopardize 134,936 active highway projects and 847,294 jobs, according to the FTA.

How about this for your next transportation stimulus, Mr. President? Image: Austin Strategic Mobility Plan

Given the GOP strategy of obstructing any stated goal of the administration, it’ll be a tough sell. Some Republicans have already made it clear they would rather see a $640 billion, 12-month payroll tax holiday. That would increase the deficit by more than twice what Obama’s plan would, but deficits don’t seem to matter as long as taxes are getting cut.

So it’s no surprise that the president is also looking for ways that he can spur infrastructure job creation without Congress’s approval. Last week, Obama pleaded with Congress to pass a clean extension of the transportation bill (a plea which some Republicans are gleefully denying). At the same time, he announced that he was directing some agencies to each identify three infrastructure projects that could use a little federal help in speeding up the process. Here’s what he said:

In keeping with a recommendation from my Jobs Council, today I’m directing certain federal agencies to identify high-priority infrastructure projects that can put people back to work. And these projects — these are projects that are already funded, and with some focused attention, we could expedite the permitting decisions and reviews necessary to get construction underway more quickly while still protecting safety, public health, and the environment.

He specifically called on the departments of agriculture, commerce, housing and urban development, interior and transportation to highlight three projects each. We were wondering whether this process will end up falling into some of the same traps as the stimulus, which emphasized shovel-readiness to the detriment of other evaluation criteria for new projects, like whether the money would be well-spent.

Though Obama didn’t use the phrase “shovel-ready” last week, he called for projects that are already funded and have state and local permits, which implies nearly the same thing. Without a new stimulus, which the Republicans have already promised to oppose, there is no money to fund new projects, making it imperative to find those that are already funded. Still, the president admitted last year that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

And despite the administration’s general friendliness toward transit and understanding of the limitations of the private automobile, 60 percent of transportation dollars in the stimulus went to highways, with just 20 percent to transit. (Most of the rest went to freight rail, with a little bit for aviation and maritime projects.)

Considering that politicians, including Obama, are looking to infrastructure as a job creator, they’d be wise to reassess those spending priorities. A Smart Growth America report earlier this year showed that stimulus-funded public transportation projects created 19,299 jobs per billion dollars spent, where the stimulus road projects created just 10,493 jobs for the same money.

“So any forthcoming jobs proposal, we would hope, would include proportionally more spending on public transportation projects or repair projects, rather than new construction of highways,” said SGA’s communications director, Alex Goldschmidt, “mainly because those are more effective at achieving the ends that the president has laid out.”

“New highway construction opens up states to huge financial liabilities,” she added. “They are then tasked with maintaining these roads and keeping them in good condition, and a lot of states are already failing to do this.”

So what would be some cost-effective, pipelined transportation projects that could be advanced as part of Obama’s short-term jobs initiative and serve as smart long-term investments?

Detroit’s light rail project along the Woodward corridor would be one favorite. The plans for the 9.3-mile, 19-stop line are complete, and just last week, it got the green light from its environmental review. Private and city funds have already been committed, but they could use more federal funds to complete the project.

And Austin has a Strategic Mobility Plan to build a 16.5-mile urban rail line connecting the University of Texas, the international airport and neighborhoods in between. The city of Austin will put a bond measure on the ballot next November to fund it, and the city is working in partnership with the county and the Federal Transit Administration.

And Chicago’s Regional Transportation Authority recently 13 planning, operating and capital projects that are slotted to receive nearly $14 million in federal, local and RTA funds. The projects, according to the RTA, “will plan for and increase transit usage, provide multi-modal connections, improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local transit, improve access to jobs, and help increase mobility for its region’s seniors, people with disabilities and the general public.”

Advocates say road and bridge repair, as well as public transit, is a good use of funds that also creates more jobs than construction and helps states address their financial burdens, rather than create new ones.

Traffic is killing us. It eats up our time, it thins our wallets as our cars idly burn through expensive gasoline, and it spoils the air we breathe. We need a path to real public transportation alternatives in order to get out of our cars and on with our lives.

That’s why I have authored legislation calling for a group of experts to develop California’s first statewide public transit development and financing plan. And, ever mindful of our trying budget times, it will not cost our state’s besieged General Fund a dime.

Assembly Bill (AB) 650 establishes a blue ribbon task force to craft a public transportation development plan for California based on an assessment of what transit we have, what amount of transit we need, and how we can finance transit construction. The task force will be composed of 12 experts in finance, transit, the environment, and public health who must complete their plan by September 30, 2012. This work would be undertaken, in part, through workshops conducted across the state. And, it would be financed from existing transit moneys provided through California’s gas tax, specifically those devoted to transit planning.

The blue ribbon task force is a tried and true way to help California find solutions to complex and enduring problems, like public transportation. In recent years, task forces have helped California enact comprehensive fisheries protections off our coast and achieve breakthrough reforms that balance our state’s water supply needs with environmental protection.

I come from Los Angeles where traffic is a big part of life. While traffic congestion is a cause for consternation across California, it is particularly bad in Southern California where traffic delays have nearly tripled over the past twenty years.

Each commuter loses 63 hours of life to traveling by car at peak hours. This staggering statistic is a reflection that we do not have enough transit alternatives.

Last month, while work was being done to expand Los Angeles’ 405 freeway, Angelenos everywhere were warned of the coming Carmageddon – massive gridlock that would paralyze the city. It was a comical spectacle for everyone not living in Los Angeles. But, more than anything else, this episode shows why we need more transit.

The simple truth is that California’s population is expected to grow by more than four million people over the next 10 years. This will lead to more time wastefully spent in traffic congestion. In 2005, transit prevented 540 million hours of traffic around the country, saving us $10.2 billion in lost economic productivity.

Transit investment creates jobs and reduces our footprint on the environment. Every $1 billion invested in transportation infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs. Every $1 invested in transit generates $6 dollars in local economic activity. For each person taking transit instead of driving, 4,800 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions will be prevented per year. By 2025, an estimated 1 in 5 Californians will be over 65 and 20% percent of this demographic does not drive.

Unfortunately, funding for transit hasn’t kept pace with demand. While we have secured a more stable funding source for transit in recent years, the demand for transit services has increased around the state, especially as fuel prices have risen, traffic congestion has grown, and Californians look for ways to cut commuting expenses and their environmental impact.

Today, most long-term transit infrastructure development planning occurs in a series of patchwork measures. We need to think bigger. Building and maintaining an effective public transportation network requires a commitment and vision that makes transit an integral part of transportation in 21st Century California. AB 650 will help get us there.

Across the United States, about 700,000 households not only lack access to a vehicle, but live in areas that are not served by transit, according to “Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households,” a new report from the Brookings Institution.

These guys are the lucky ones. About 700,000 people in the 100 largest U.S. metros not only don't have cars, but don't have access to transit. Photo: Angie Schmitt

This isolated population represents about 10 percent of the 7.5 million carless households in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. Beyond issues of social justice, these households’ predicament presents a great economic concern for the country, say Brookings researchers.

“Seven hundred thousand households is larger than the population of Columbus, Ohio or San Antonio, Texas,” said Adie Tomer, senior research analyst and author of the report. “These people are terribly constrained in earning a living, getting to the store, or taking their kids to daycare. If this many people were facing a public health scare, this country would be in crisis mode. We need to approach this problem with similar urgency.”

The most vulnerable carless families, by and large, were those that live in the suburbs or the Southwest, according to the report. Cities with the highest number of families lacking access to transit and private automobiles included Atlanta, with just 69 percent transit coverage, Dallas (71 percent), Houston (73 percent), Phoenix (81 percent) and St. Louis (82 percent).

On the other hand, some of the biggest overall transit cities also do the best job making sure nearly every resident has access to service. Los Angeles’ transit services reach more than 99 percent percent of the regional population, just ahead of New York (99 percent), San Francisco (98 percent), Seattle (97 percent) and Miami (97 percent).

Report authors point to trends like job sprawl and the increased suburbanization of poverty as aggravating factors that put carless families at economic risk. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has built 655,000 roadway lane miles; this had the effect of increasing the distance between destinations, the report noted.

Brookings researchers urged both local and national leaders to respond to this crisis through land use policies that encourage development in densely populated areas and expanding transit service into under-served suburban communities.

The civil rights fight for equitable transportation didn't end with Rosa Parks.

So says a report from the Leadership Conference Education Fund, a project of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. The coalition wasn’t involved in the transportation reauthorization debate in 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was passed, and they’re determined to be at the table this time.

In March, they quietly published their report, “Where We Need to Go: A Civil Rights Roadmap for Transportation Equity”, and since then they’ve put out three more reports, springboarding off of that first overview. The subsequent reports focus on access to health care [PDF], access to housing [PDF], and access to jobs [PDF].

They never really released these reports to the press, which is why we’re just letting you know about them now. Some media outlets caught wind of it in late July and a small flurry of stories came out in the week or two after the Leadership Conference hosted a “fly-in” lobby day, where nearly 40 constituents from nine target states came to Washington to meet with their representatives’ offices.

According to the Leadership Conference report, racial minorities are four times more likely than whites to lack access to a car and to rely on public transportation for their commute to work. African Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population but 20 percent of the pedestrian fatalities. And the problem is far worse for Native Americans on reservations. Pedestrians there have the highest per capita risk of injury and death of any ethnic group in the U.S. While vehicle fatalities are dropping around the country, they’re on the rise on reservations.

All of that explains why the a group focused on civil and human rights would be interested in transportation – it’s an issue of racial justice. It’s also an economic issue, they say: with job sprawl pushing more and more jobs far outside the urban core, access to those jobs can be exclusively by private car. Even three out of five jobs “suitable for welfare-to-work participants” are not accessible by public transit, the report says.

Transportation is also a housing issue, when people of limited means are priced out of even inexpensive housing because transportation costs are too high outside the city, where transit doesn’t reach.

And transportation is a health issue, when people with disabilities who cannot drive skip medical appointments because they have no way to get there. “Imagine being an 80 year-old dialysis patient waiting for the bus for three hours—this happens in today’s America, and it hurts people,” said the National Association of County and City Health Officials. Meanwhile, families in autocentric communities lack convenient access to healthy foods or walkable neighborhoods to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

“Although our laws promise to open doors to opportunity,” the Leadership Conference writes, “this is a hollow promise for people who are physically isolated from jobs, schools, stores that sell healthy food, and health care providers. As our metropolitan areas have expanded and jobs and services have become more diffuse, equal opportunity depends upon equal access to affordable transportation.”

Indeed, the suburbanization of poverty is a large part of the problem. The suburbs were designed to be autocentric. They’ve never made any bones about it. For decades, the suburbs have sucked up a disproportionate amount of transportation dollars and wielded a disproportionate amount of power in decision-making bodies, and they’ve used that money and power primarily to build roads. And those roads have led farther and farther away from the urban center, and the only way to get to any of these places was to drive there.

But now, housing values are crashing in suburbia and, especially, in exurbia – so much so that Section 8 voucher-holders are increasingly residing in pockets of suburbia that used to be out of their reach, while their inner-city neighborhoods are the new urban hotspots, with rising prices forcing them away.

Even in transit-rich areas, affluent people often have cars. One mark of gentrification is the sudden scarcity of street parking. On the flip side, even in the transit-poor world of sprawling subdivisions, some low-income people can’t afford to own a car. We’ve seen the tragic results when people try to walk and bike on roads designed exclusively for the automobile.

All in all, the Leadership Conference has determined that “Transportation is back as a major civil rights issue,” in the words of Angela Glover Blackwell, founder and CEO of PolicyLink. “Today’s focus is not on getting a seat at the front of the bus but on making sure the bus takes us where we need to go.”

The Leadership Conference says transportation inequities have further entrenched segregation:

By investing disproportionately in highways that expand metropolitan areas, funding construction far from urban centers, and tipping decision-making power away from urban and inner suburban constituencies, our transit planning has placed inequitable burdens on low-income people, people with disabilities, and people of color by entrenching the segregation of racial minorities and increasing the concentration of poverty.

Post-WWII highway projects plowed through minority urban neighborhoods to shuttle commuters to and from the suburbs. Transportation planning has historically prioritized suburban development over strengthening cities and incentivized geographic expansion rather than improving infrastructure to accommodate larger, more densely populated areas. The result: Geographic segregation, along with unequal investment in transit options for urban, low-income people.

Indeed, the suburban sway over MPOs around the country isn’t likely to mean transit expansion and better walking conditions just because the demographics of the suburbs are shifting. As low-income people move out to the suburbs, they aren’t necessarily becoming part of that suburban power structure, said Lexer Quamie, counsel and transportation expert at the Leadership Conference.

“The individuals that are being pushed out there, not necessarily by choice, may not put themselves at the table,” she said. “If you don’t know there’s process you can be part of, you’re left out.”

That’s why “meaningful representation” of low-income people, people of color, and people with disabilities is a major plank of the Leadership Conference’s platform for change. But most importantly: “Ending the disproportionate investment in car-based transit must be a centerpiece of the transportation equity agenda.”

It's working in San Francisco. Now USDOT can help expand dynamic pricing to other cities around the country. Image: SFMTA.

Well now, that’s an understatement.

Between the uncertainty of the supercommittee and the bicameral bickering over the size and length of a bill, the only thing we can be sure of is that we’re heading toward yet another extension of SAFETEA-LU when it expires at the end of next month – if the two parties can agree to even that. Negotiations broke down over a whole lot less recently, when Congress let the FAA shut down over a measly couple million bucks.

But even if it’s a while before we see legislation passed that enacts new policies, there’s a lot the USDOT can do with existing authority to make smarter transportation investments that reduce congestion and carbon emissions. NRDC has documented them in a new report, “Federal Actions to Reduce Energy Use in Transportation” [PDF].

• Dynamic pricing. Fifteen states are participating in the DOTs Value Pilot Pricing Program, which allows states more flexibility in levying tolls and other pricing measures. San Francisco’s innovative new parking pricing system is a fruit of this program. Other variable pricing measures, like congestion pricing, could also help reduce fuel use and pollution, says Lovaas.
• Realism. USDOT should enforce the fiscal constraints of regional long-range transportation plans, being upfront about realistic costs. Lovaas says this will address a “pet peeve” of his and force states to reconsider “costly highway projects that have been on the books forever.”
• Transit benefits. Without further authority, USDOT could expand and promote the transit benefit program, which allows companies to give employees $240 per month in tax-free transit and vanpool benefits. Lovaas says the program is currently run by the IRS without any DOT involvement, and is vastly undersubscribed.

• Reclassify fuel. States and metros can generally only use federal funds for capital expenses, not operating costs. That leads to major maintenance backlogs, even while states invest in shiny new projects (which will then need to be maintained, and won’t be). One solution? Consider fuel a capital cost.
• Energy-efficient modes of transportation. Even without a new bill, USDOT could invest more in public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and telecommuting. For starters, it could simplify the New Starts process for transit expansion, streamlining environmental review requirements and encouraging public-private partnerships. It could also take on more of the cost-escalation risk of new projects so that the risk doesn’t scare states away from taking on bold new projects, the way New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie used cost escalation as justification for killing the ARC tunnel project.
• Land use. Though NRDC admits that “federal influence here is indirect,” it says the FTA should consider land use among its evaluation criteria when selecting New Starts projects.

Those are just a few of NRDC’s ideas. It’s enough to give transportation reformers a glimmer of hope that, even if an innovative new bill may be a long way off, innovation can keep on going.

FTA Chief Peter Rogoff leads a panel of transit experts in Detroit. Photo courtesy of USDOT.

For the last two days, transit experts from around the country have been hunkered down in Detroit to devote their collective expertise to making the Motor City a better city for transit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I support the goal of reducing vehicle trips, this bill would impose a new mandate on small business at a time of economic uncertainty.

Governor Brown tosses up an airball. Photo: Office of the Governor via KQED

There’s only one problem with this statement. SB 582 doesn’t require anything of small business without the action of local government bodies known as Municipal Planning Organizations or Air Quality Districts (MPO’s and AQD’s) and the mandate they could require would barely cost businesses anything. A coalition of environmental, transportation reform and public health groups supported the legislation as well as some large employers including Facebook and Genetech.

“We’re disappointed that Governor Brown vetoed this bill, which would have saved money for California employers and employees, while improving our air quality,” writes Rebecca Saltzman, a program associate with the California League of Conservation Voters.

So what would SB 582 have actually done? It would have given MPO’s and AQD’s the ability to require businesses with 20 full-time employees (or in some cases 50 depending the transit options and air quality of the area) to provide commuter benefits to employees who commute to and from work without their car. Despite the Governor’s rhetoric, there was near-cost-free options to meet this requirement.

• Give employees the option to pay for their transit, vanpooling or bicycling expenses with pre-tax dollars, as currently allowed by federal law;
• Offer employees a transit or vanpool subsidy up to $75 per month;
• Provide employees with a free shuttle or vanpool operated by or for the employer.

The first option basically allows employers to deduct up to $75 from employees pay checks and provide them with a separate check for that amount to cover commuting expenses. This allows transit and bike commuters to have a tax-free, or tax reduced fare if their monthly transit ticket is more than $75.

In a letter to supporters, Bay Area based reform group TransForm noted that, “Commuter benefits typically reduce taxes for employers, too, so this is a win for everyone.” By reducing the taxable salary of employees, employers would reduce their taxes and could save more than the costs of administering a commuter benefits program.

The good news is that individual municipalities already have the power to require commuter benefits programs. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco have their own requirements and program already in place. The bad news is that providing these cost-free benefits has become an oddly partisan issue in Sacramento.

But it wasn’t always that way. SB 582 was first introduced by Riverside County Republican State Senator Bill Emmerson who guided the bill through the Senate with largely bi-partisan support. Then, after the bill easily cleared an Assembly Committee, opposition to the legislation was registered by the California Chamber of Commerce and California Taxpayers Association. Their opposition caused Emmerson to drop his support of the legislation (all mentions of the bill have been scrubbed from his website). Sponsorship was then transferred to Bay Area Democrat Leland Yee.

For more details on the partisanization of this bill, visit the League of Conservation Voter’s Blogsite.

But one setback doesn’t mean that supporters of SB 582 have given up the fight. “CLCV and our partners will continue to work to pass legislation that incentivizes and improves access to alternative means of transportation, like AB 650. That bill would establish a task force that will examine the current state of public transit, identify what is needed to make the system meet projected demand, map out associated costs, and – most importantly – determine how to consistently fund public transport to serve our state’s needs,” writes Saltzman.

Streetsblog will have more coverage of AB 650 next week.

The federal transportation bill by Rep. John Mica would focus on the federal highway system, not sustainable transportation.

Public transit programs in California could take a $468 million annual hit under the proposed transportation bill unveiled last week by Rep. John Mica (R-FL). The Mica plan would also potentially result in the loss of 17,565 annual jobs, according to an analysis [pdf] by Transportation for America. Overall, T4A predicts the scaled-down bill would result in a 37 percent reduction in federal investments in public transportation when compared to current levels.

“What you will see, more than likely, is transit agencies taking what money they have available for operations and shifting some of that over into making up that federal cut for the capital expenses,” said Ryan Wiggins, the T4A Southern California field representative. “What they might be forced to do is a combination of fare increases, and/or service cuts.”

“This is the federal government not investing in our infrastructure. That’s what it is,” said Randy Rentschler, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “I think there are some elements to it that are positive, but often what matters most is the money, and the money is clearly inadequate.”

In San Francisco, SFMTA spokesperson Paul Rose said Muni would be forced to defer or delay some major capital investment projects, including work on the Central Subway, Van Ness BRT, the replacement of trolley coach and motor coach vehicles, and an upgrade of rail and overhead line infrastructure. It would also force the agency to “defer fleet rehabilitation of motor coach and historic fleet vehicles which will impact service due to lack of available vehicles” and delay the scheduled replacement of 35 paratransit vans, along with other projects.

The bill would also eliminate any federal guarantee for bicycle and pedestrian programs. Wiggins said T4A fears that money which typically comes from federal transportation enhancement funds would all be funneled to big infrastructure projects, and bike and ped programs would get neglected by state transportation agencies.

Dave Snyder, the executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, was more optimistic, considering the strong advocacy for biking and walking in the state.

“We have some work to do in California to make sure that the kinds of projects that were funded out of enhancements continue to get funded but I’m confident that in most areas of California, anyway, we can maintain that level of funding, if not increase it, thanks to the growing support for this kind of stuff,” he said.

Senator Barbara Boxer, who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has vowed to fight the proposed cuts, and is offering her own proposal.

The century-old transit tunnel NJ Gov. Christie decided not to modernize. Photo: TSTC

Christie’s decision to kill the project to expand capacity in a train tunnel under the Hudson River had one positive result: it must have made things easier for ­FTA officials to make the cuts required by the 25 percent haircut the New Starts program received earlier this year at the hands of Congressional budget-cutters.

The $200 million federal grant for ARC was one of the biggest on the list of proposed New Starts projects last year. The only other significant change is that the $45 million for “Other New Starts/Small Starts Projects” became $20 million for Alaska’s Denali Commission and for ferries in Alaska and Hawaii.

In its press release, USDOT highlights some of the transit projects that are moving forward:

The New Britain-Hartford Busway will provide commuters traveling between New Britain and Hartford a more efficient and cost-effective alternative to the current daily commute on Interstate 84, the region’s most congested highway. The dedicated busway will provide the area’s relatively large transit-dependent population better access to the 81,000 jobs along the route and across the busway’s 11 stations, promote redevelopment opportunities along the 9.4-mile corridor, and provide faster transit access to major activity centers throughout the area. The FTA anticipates an overall federal commitment of $275.3 million to the $572.7 million project.

Denver’s 13-station Eagle Commuter Rail project, which will add nearly 23 miles of service to Denver’s transit system connecting downtown Denver and Denver International Airport to the east with numerous communities in between. Ultimately, the FTA projects contributing approximately $1 billion towards the $2 billion project, which is expected to create 5,400 jobs during peak construction. This is one component of FasTracks, a multi-billion dollar, multi-year transit-expansion program that will help Denver support smart, sustainable growth, create jobs, and compete for business for decades to come.

The Rapid C Bus Rapid Transit Line will help to relieve traffic congestion in West Seattle, Washington, improve access to downtown Seattle’s 150,000 jobs, and connect the popular Washington State Ferries serving Vashon Island and Southworth among other spots along the corridor. Nearly $21.3 million in discretionary 2011 funds has been budgeted for construction of the $28.4 million project. The C Line, which should be fully operational by the fall of 2012, is expected to create approximately 180 construction, manufacturing, and transportation jobs during the peak construction period.

The Central Corridor light rail project will connect Minnesota’s two largest cities—Minneapolis and Saint Paul—by light rail for the first time. The FTA recently signed a Full Funding Grant Agreement making a long-term financial commitment to the $957 million light rail line, which will carry 40,000 riders along this busy 11-mile corridor. The project, which includes 18 new stations and 31 new rail cars, is scheduled to open in 2014. In addition to serving the downtown areas of the Twin Cities, the Central Corridor line will provide more efficient access to the University of Minnesota, the Midway area, the State Capitol complex, Target Field and the Metrodome, and many neighborhoods in between.

The Austin MetroRapid is a 37.5-mile, 40-stop, bus rapid transit (BRT) system. The FTA is supporting the local vision with a $24.2 million investment in 2011 towards the nearly $50 million project. The project, which is scheduled to open in the summer of 2013, is the first phase of Capitol Metropolitan Transit Authority’s comprehensive and forward-leaning All Systems Go ten-corridor long-range transit plan.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) led 24 other senators in urging "strengthened" funding for transit. Photo: Examiner

The letter notes that public transportation systems find themselves in a budgetary crisis just as more and more people, driven by $4/gallon gas, are seeking out transportation options.

During the worst economic downturn in recent memory, we must identify new approaches for funding infrastructure projects. A truly long-term and prudent vision for a future transportation network will strengthen the role of public transportation in growing our communities and ensure that new funding strategies do not favor highway spending to the detriment of public transportation spending.

Americans want and deserve transportation options that reflect community priorities and values. At a time when deficit reduction is attracting the full focus of the Congress, we implore the Committee to strengthen the Mass Transit Account’s fair share of funding in the next surface transportation authorization to guarantee that our economic recovery continues and that we can be more self-reliant in meeting our transportation needs.

The letter doesn’t specifically ask for a larger share of surface transportation dollars than the 20 percent mass transit historically is allotted, but they do ask for transit’s share to be strengthened. Apparently, given the challenges implicit in getting 25 senators to agree on anything, that vague language was as specific as they could get.

In a statement on the letter, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with jurisdiction over public transportation, pointed out the need for new transportation revenues — and the fact that the House is going in the opposite direction.

Congress is currently working on reauthorizing the surface transportation bill, which expires on September 30. If spending continues at current levels, the highway account could run out of money next year and the transit account shortly thereafter. The Senate Finance Committee is responsible for funding these accounts. The House of Representatives is currently developing a transportation bill that follows the Ryan Budget’s direction to cut surface transportation funding by 31 percent.

A list of senators signing on to the letter is after the jump.

• Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Charles Schumer (D-NY)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)
• Robert Casey (D-PA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
• Tom Udall (D-NM)
• John Kerry (D-MA)
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Jim Webb (D-VA)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)

Photo: friedmanlynn

There are a lot of disturbing numbers in Transportation for America’s new report, “Aging in Place, Stuck Without Options.” It says the Bay Area currently has the best transportation access for seniors, but points out that in the coming years a rising number of people over age 65 will live in neighborhoods where transit service is either poor or doesn’t exist.

“In just four years, 62 percent more seniors in the San Francisco metro area will live with poor transit compared to 2000, versus 56 percent more for Oakland metro area and 66 percent more for San Jose metro area,” notes a press release from TransForm, an Oakland-based non-profit advocating for transit and smart growth.

In San Mateo County, as an example, 1 out of 4 residents will be over the age of 65 by 2030, and the number of people over the age of 85 will increase to two and half times the current number, according to the San Mateo County Health System. Sixty percent of baby boomers are projected to have more than one chronic disease, while nearly a third will be obese, and 25 percent will have diabetes.

“If we want to have healthy seniors, we have to invest in reliable, frequent and safe public transportation systems so that people can get where they need to go without a car,” said Jean Fraser, the San Mateo County Health System Chief. “If we develop our communities using the 8-80 rule — so sidewalks, bike lanes, streets, buses and trains are safe and welcoming to kids aged 8 and seniors aged 80 — we will keep both our seniors and our children much healthier.”

As Congress prepares a long-term transportation bill, transit advocates say it’s important that residents urge their representatives to adopt policies to ensure that seniors “remain mobile, active and independent.”

“The situation is already acute in the Bay Area, with annual transit cuts and growing demand,” said Stuart Cohen, the executive director of TransForm. “But now Congress is threatening to further slash funding and take away our flexibility to spend it on our greatest needs; more than ever we need Senator Boxer’s leadership as her committee finalizes the six-year transportation bill.”

Following T4A’s easy link to send a letter to Senator Boxer. More coverage at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.