(Source: The Infrastructurist)

Our friends at The Infrastructurist compiled the national results from that study and compare them with the demographics of transit systems in three U.S. cities: Washington, D.C., Portland, Oregon, and San Francisco (well, the Bay Area). The snapshot offers an intriguing insight into which Americans choose not to drive to work.

If FTA can spend a bunch of money on such a compilation for the entire US,  that would greatly benefit many of our professionals engaged in transportation planning & policy research.  An analysis on the issue of social equity and its underpinning to transportation alternatives would be very helpful to say the least as the country’s demographics has undergone a signficiant shift in the past decade or two.

(Source: The Transport Politic)

The Federal Transit Administration releases its budget for FY ‘10, and recommends new transit capital projects

On Friday, the Obama Administration released details on its proposed budget for fiscal year 2010. The recommended appropriations affect each agency, and will have to be approved by Congress in a succession of relevant bills before they become law, but since Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches, there are likely to be few divergences from the President’s proposals.

The Federal Transit Administration’s budget will increase to $10.34 billion this year, up from $10.23 billion in FY 2009. These amounts were set in stone by the 2005 surface transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, so there was little expectation that the President would propose massive increases in funding for public transportation. However, the budget significantly expands funding for New and Small Start transit capital projects, from $1.57 billion in ‘09 to $1.83 billion in ‘10. ARRA stimulus funds were included in FY ‘09.

Because the dedicated highway trust fund, which funds highways and transit and which relies on fuel tax revenues, is running out of cash as people drive less and automobiles become more frugal, the government needs a new source of funds for transportation. This year, as in 2008, the Hosue and Senate will likely have to divert general fund revenues to compensate, and the budget assumes that fact, proposing that a large percentage of both transit and highway money be appropriated directly by the Congress.

Along with the general budget, the Department of Transportation released itsannual New Starts Report. This document, which is well worth reading through if you have the time, documents the federal government’s commitment to funding new transit corridors in the United States. The FTA rated and recommended a number of new corridors for funding — five major New Starts projects and five Small Start projects in addition to several already announced over the past year.

Click here to read the rest of this interesting analysis (Note: It is a lengthy analysis too).

 (Source: The Transport Politic)

State Senate finally comes to agreement on system’s adequate funding; will vote today

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which has been threatening huge fare increases and drastic cuts in service, will be able to rest easy tonight, because its multi-billion-dollar budget deficit will be covered by a new, more stable source of revenue: a region-wide payroll tax. There will be no bridge tolls, but a small fare increase. Though this is no panacea, and more funding is still needed, but this is huge news for New York City and means that the city will continue to be able to offer its citizens high-quality transit at a reasonable price.

The solution — held up for weeks by the demands of a few Democrats in the Senate (no members of the GOP are willing to vote for the program) — was found by agreeing to reimburse school districts that are affected by the tax. 

According to Gotham Gazette (via 2nd Ave Sagas), the plan to be voted on this afternoon will raise a total of $2.26 billion a year for the transit agency. This plan will cover the $1.8 billion MTA’s budget gap for FY 2009 and the $2 billion gap for 2010 as well as provide a small amount for capital expenditures. The New York Timesclaims that the taxes will be enough to cover the first two years of the agency’s 2010-2014 capital program. The state is likely to have to get going over the next few months to shape a funding system for necessary subway and commuter rail repairs as well as expansion needs.

Here are the basic conditions:

• 34¢/$100 payroll tax in all 12 MTA counties, with no differences between them (meaning people in Manhattan pay the same amount as people in Nassau County, even though people in the former clearly are more likely to take advantage of the transit system than those in the latter): $1.5 billion/year.
• 10% fare increase, will likely raise the cost of a single ride to $2.25 from $2 today; monthly unlimited cards will go from $81 to $89: $500 million/year.
• 50¢ surcharge on taxi rides: $85 million.
• $25 vehicle registration fee on the MTA region: $130 million.
• Increase on car rental fee: $35 million.
• Increase on driver’s license fee: $10.5 million.

The plan also foresees fare hikes of 7.5% in 2011 and 2013 to keep up with inflation.

(Source: Streetsblog)

Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation’s surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That’s the challenge faced by Congress today.

Less of this...

 Transportation funding from Washington has been heavily weighted toward highway spending ever since President Eisenhower first proposed the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. SAFETEA-LU, 2005’s federal transportation bill, was no exception. It provided $244.1 billionover five years, its revenues raised by the federal gas tax and directed to the Highway Trust Fund, which has both highway and mass transit accounts. $40 billion a year went to highways, most of which was used to expand and upgrade the Interstate highway system; some $10 billion went annually to mass transit.

The $10 billion in public transportation funds is distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a variety of uses. The FTA administers the urban areas program, which allocates money to metropolitan areas for transit system capital expenses, as well as a rural areas program that helps states pay for rural transit. SAFETEA-LU also included a fixed-guideways formula, aimed at keeping mostly older rail transit systems like those in Chicago or Boston in working condition. Finally, the New Starts/Small Starts program allowed the FTA to fund competitive grants for major capacity expansion such as new subway or bus rapid transit lines.

More of this...

 SAFETEA-LU provided for $40 billion in annual funding from the highway account, the traditional federal source for financing Interstate highways. But under the law, money from the account could actually be spent on more than just roads. Roughly $6.5 billion per year was allocated to the “Surface Transportation Program.” States were allowed to use this money to fund transit and “bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.” The “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” — about $1.7 billion a year — went to projects likely to reduce pollution, and specifically forbade funding “a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles.”

There’s one problem, though. The federal government may allow such funds to be spent on non-auto uses, but that’s rarely the case.

That’s because, while each metropolitan area has a federally-mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) whose role is to establish priorities for transportation investments, state departments of transportation have ultimate discretion over how national highway funds are used. The inevitable consequence? Asphalt-happy DOTs usually choose to invest highway funds in roads, even when MPOs advocate for improved transit or bikeways. According to Transportation for America, only five states — California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — have taken advantage of the flexibility of these funds. The rest have spent the vast majority on auto infrastructure.

What’s more, SAFETEA-LU made it easy for states to build roads and hard for them to build transit projects. While funds for new roads were simply distributed to states based on a formula, new transit lines had to undergo the rigorous New Starts process — competing with other projects from all over the country — before winning a share of federal dollars. There was no such required audit for road projects.

(Source: The Transport Politic)

Proposal reveals a little – and a lot – about how the administration wants to proceed with its rail programs

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Infrastructurist)

Image: Infrastructurist

Everywhere you look, from Argentina to Saudi Arabia, there’s a country planning a new high-speed rail line.  Contributor Yonah Freemark offered this incredible, easy to understand graphical depiction on Infrastructurist, which compares seven lines on four continents that are either in the engineering phase or already under construction. They range in size from the diminutive 34-mile project that will connect Jerusalem and Tel Aviv to the gargantuan 818-mile link between Beijing and Shanghai. The variations in construction cost per mile and local meaning of the term “high speed” are almost as great.