Dedicated Funding Source

In the long run, there was not a single person writing in the National Journal transportation panel section that said the VMT tax was an inherently bad idea. Very interesting.

On a similar note, Tennessee is looking to give regional transit authorities the ability to have a source.

First, it would allow other major municipalities in Tennessee to establish their own Regional Transportation Authority, like the one already in place for Middle Tennessee.

It would then allow a local RTA to take one of two routes in order to establish a dedicated funding source for regional transportation. An RTA could take a dedicated funding proposal to voters for a referendum, or it could ask a local legislative body like Metro Council to pass a law created a new funding source for mass transit.

Nashville recently opened the Music City Star which hasn't performed as well as perhaps it should and is also looking at alternatives on two other corridors. It seems as if these projects could be sped up by a dedicated source. We'll be watching to see how this progresses.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax

Man there was quite the firestorm on the blogs today about the idea floated on a VMT tax by Secretary LaHood. Apparently it was such a bad idea to the Obama administration that they smacked down the idea later in the day. While that was the political thing to do, I'm not sure it was the smart thing to do. I'd like to see more studies on it before we come with a verdict.

Lets take a look at all the comments we saw today from progressives on a number of different blogs...

1. It will hurt the poor
2. It will cost a lot
3. It invades my privacy
4. It was proposed by a Republican
5. Why not just raise the gas tax?
6. Why not have a complicated weight and energy efficiency tax
7. Why do we even need a GPS collector instead of just reading odometers
8. It's hard for shift workers to take transit
9. Heavy trucks do more damage
10. My Prius driving will be punished
11. Senators will vote no because they are from low density states
12. If fuel efficiency goes to zero where does money for roads come from?
13. How about better road surfaces?
14. We'll need an electricity tax in ten years
15. We're not taxing vegetable oil for carbon
16. The only house I could afford was on the periphery
17. I don't want to pay anymore money for highways
18. What do miles driven have to do with anything?
19. A mileage tax doesn't distinguish between a hybrid and a hummer
20. People in Idaho live far away from where they work
21. I prefer to pay the traditional way, gas tax
22. Cheap gas is a birthright
23. It might encourage people to live closer to work
24. Miles tax is a GOP plan to save the gas guzzler
25. I don't want to punish people who live in rural areas
26. It's a trucking industry ploy to keep freight off the rails
27. I have a libertarian streak so i don't like it

Honestly, to me a lot of these are silly, but I thought you all would get a small chuckle.

The reasons for a mileage tax would be to push people into really thinking about how far away from work and other amenities they are living. They are already paying the price for their decisions given that people in location efficient areas can spend very little on transportation costs while folks in the worst sprawl spend up to 25% or more, but with a mileage tax, they'll be thinking about it even more. As that TXDOT study said (it's subsequently been taken off their site), a heavily traveled road in Houston would need $2.22 a gallon in taxes to actually pay for it. Many of the arguments for an increased gas tax would never likely get up that high, and that is actually the low end of what is really needed according to TXDOT, and that is just for federal and state roads, not bike lanes, transit and sidewalks/city streets.

I'm not saying that we don't need to make people pay for the negative externalities of the weight of thier vehicle or the gasoline they guzzle, but people need to start connecting the dots on housing and transportation costs that are killing family budgets and they lifestyles and driving patterns that lead to them. I'm not going to toss the mileage fee out yet. It might be a good idea or a bad idea. Let's just wait and see when the trials in Oregon and other places are completed instead of just throwing it out right away. There are plenty of arguments each way, I look forward to seeing them all.

Would Have Gotten Away With It...

If it weren't for those locals. These are the types of things I like to see. More local control over local decisions. Federal and State funding is good and should be available, but it's the local folks that know what they need.

The local-state show of support was far different from the 2007 lawmaking session. Some lawmakers then gave only grudging lip-service to the rail plan; others were hostile or resentful that local officials had pushed them to support the ambitious project.

Obviously there is still a vote needed, but this is a good step for local option transportation funding, hopefully more transit funding than roads.

Destroying What You're Trying to Protect

The divide in understanding transportation's value to working families is rather disheartening. At one time, automobiles were seen as the great equalizer, allowing upward mobility for the masses. Sometime along the way, they went from being a benefit to being a burden. Costs of ownership increased as land use patterns led Americans to drive even further away from their workplaces in search of an inexpensive place to raise a family that had a yard for the dog. But that house was in a place where the family had to buy two or even three cars to keep mobile.

But that push through subsidy towards the suburban ideal, has left us with lopsided policy that spends more money than we need to on urban development and mobility. It also leads people to believe that transit is a tool of the poor alone, not seeing the possible benefits to them personally. A recent New York Review of Books (via T4A) article notes that the poor are a large part of the transit constituency and that the regressive effects of a carbon tax should be offset by building more buses.

Investment in the infrastructure of a post-auto-industrial society would provide some compensation for the regressive effects of a carbon tax (or of the increase in prices that would result from a "cap and trade" scheme, as industries passed on the costs of compliance to consumers). It would be an investment in the technologies that are used by poor people, including buses, bus stops, and information about the departures of buses and transit vans.

But what about the middle class? They are squeezed as well with rising costs of automobiling and rising home costs in cities. An answer that has become more palatable is increasing transit funding and moving towards better land use patterns and policies that would increase housing in the core. This change would allow people to save money, and allow them to live within their means by saving money on transportation costs.

But others don't see it that way. Some conservatives and especially libertarians would have you think that freedom is the automobile and that everyone wants to live in a big house with three cars. They believe so much so in this that anything else is forced upon those who we know are actually self selecting. Here is Milwaukee uber conservative Patrick McIlheran:

What's more, people can and do live transit-oriented lives along these Milwaukee streets and others. While Bernstein argued that people here are made poorer by having to drive a lot, the fact is that there's a lot of reasonable real estate next to scheduled transit, should you want it.

...

Dense, transit-oriented living is good and useful for those who seek it. Where its enthusiasts err is in feeling that many more people, maybe all, should be seeking it and that spending lots of tax money will make that happen.

Yeah, TOD isn't going to be everyone's choice, rational thinkers know that, but the problem here is that we're spending lots of tax money to make automobiling happen and not investing in the other pieces of the transportation spectrum or sustainable development. But the mistake he makes here is the idea that buses are for the poor or people who want that lifestyle, but they don't deserve better service that might increase the demand.

Sure people could choose to live a transit oriented lifestyle on the existing bus system, but last time I heard, Milwaukee conservatives have been starving it to death, creating a situation where its not really an option. They don't just have a thing against trains, they have a thing against quality transit. And that is too bad because they are punishing those who they think they are trying to help. Since when did the idea of pooling money for an outcome that is a common good become a bad idea? The savings would be incredible and its unfortunate that the disconnect is even there.

The thing that Patrick is railing against is actually what he's advocating on the other end. It's hypocrisy at its greatest, pushing away from what the market is actually working towards and artificially going the other way. One would hope that if he really wanted to save taxpayer money, he would advocate for the most efficient land use patterns and push for less tax revenue going to large road projects and into projects that could save a lot of people money. In essence, he's pushing for people to spend thousands more so they can save hundreds. This never made sense to me.

Three Projects is Waaay Too Many

Another shortsighted look at transit.

Mayor Pat McCrory cautions against too many competing transit projects muddying the lobbying waters at a state and federal level. The Metropolitan Transit Commission steers most elements of the 2030 plan, including an ongoing assessment of whether to push forward with an extension of a northeast light-rail line and a northbound commuter-rail route.

We never worked on three highway projects at the same time, or road projects. It makes absolutely no sense to work on three transit projects at the same time. And there is no other funding source outside of the state and federal level. Money always grows on those trees alone.

But in all seriousness, there is plenty of money out there to fund transit. It's all about regional priority. Not that expect places to start switching over money tomorrow, but the interstate highway system is done. Widening freeways should be over. It's time to start thinking about more mobility for the tax base that has paid for everyone else's. Cities are the economic generators of this country. It's about time we treated them as such.

When Do We Get to Win?

When we win we still lose. Seems like that is the theme over in the Senate. And as an added bonus, the Senate has turned into the State of California, where the minority seems to win somehow. How come the minority didn't win all the time when the Democrats were in power? This is infuriating.

Then you have people who are supposed to be allies voting against the bill. Landrieu of all people should know better after Katrina knocked out the New Orleans Streetcar system for months on end and put an abrupt stop to expansion of the Desire Line, for which funding had almost materialized before the storm.

And when President Obama "pledged to launch the biggest public works program since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s" we didn't think you meant a whole new highway system. People want Infrastructure and not just roads. Republican pollsters even say they do. Rails, energy facilities, water treatment etc etc.

How about investing in operating transit? It has been conspicuously left out and as Brad Plummer mentions over at the Vine, Obama's team when asked why the infrastructure funding is so paltry, responds that they don't think we can spend it fast enough. I think its more something along the lines of this...

You can go ahead and tell yourself that this is just theory - just a single example. But that's willful ignorance, as the Hindrey scalping is only one chapter in what has been one long narrative arc whereby economic progressives have been deliberately shut out of top administration jobs. Just step back and think about it for a minute: Amid a stable of eminently qualified and well-respected progressives like James Galbraith, Joseph Stiglitz, Dean Baker, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Larry Mishel, Obama has chosen Rubin sycophants like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner to run the economy - the same Larry Summers who pushed the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, the same Geithner who masterminded the kleptocratic bank bailout, the same duo whose claim to fame is their personal connections to Rubin, a disgraced Citigroup executive at the center of the current meltdown. And the list of Rubin sycophants keeps getting longer, from Peter Orszag to Jason Furman.

You can only have a circus when the clowns are in the building. And that includes the bearded ladies that think that the census is pork. But the bigger story here is that Obama's people only believe in pushing paper around instead of dirt.

But this all got me thinking, what would get people to pay attention? What would get people to start thinking about how important transit is in the major metropolitan areas and how a stimulus would work? How about we just pull an Ottawa and shut it all down. Imagine the signal that would send. Just stop running the buses and trains for one random unannounced day and see what happens. When all those Senate aids can't get to work or when bicycles start piling up outside the capital office buildings, perhaps some will take notice. When Denver shut down its system, the region was brought 30 minute delays and hellish parking scenarios downtown. When LA did it, traffic speeds declined 20%. Those are big numbers. Imagine them everywhere. Do you think people would finally notice?

I know i'm getting a bit more militant about this, but if we don't start seeing signs that things are actually going to change this year, it might be time to start trying something different than just voting for change. It's not like we're asking a lot more than is needed in this country. That comes during reauthorization. We're gonna have to change things ourselves. Anyone else getting tired of being not the permanent minority or majority, but permanently screwed?

Tell Boxer to Hit Back Hard

This is ridiculous.

Inhofe sent a letter to current Committee Chair Barbara Boxer last week expressing outrage that highways were only getting $27 billion in the Senate version of the Economic Recovery Act, and said "given the large number of ready to go highway projects and the economic benefits of highway investment, we believe the level of highway investment should be at least 10 percent of the total stimulus package," or more than $80 billion.

The worst part? She's considering doing it!!! The Chair of the Environment and Public Works committee even thinking about caving to the biggest opposition to the environment in the Senate? No way BB. T4 has the action alert.

Senator Boxer is considering an amendment to increase highway funding in the economic recovery legislation. Let her know we don't want another blank check for highways. We need to ensure that the amendment language would achieve important safety, system repair, and climate goals.

Ask Senator Boxer to support an amendment that would:

1. Give preference to projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled, like transit, bike or pedestrian projects.

2. Fast Track Highway Safety projects that improve efficiency and reduce congestion, like bridge maintenance and improved signalization.

If we don't prioritize our spending we cannot achieve our environmental, energy, and safety goals, and we run the risk of harming our state and the nation. Thank you for speaking out against another blank check for highways.

Please call Senator Boxer's office today at (202) 224-3553

The Recycling Bin

Is anyone else tired of the same old recycled junk? Can someone remind me if the Interstate Highway System we started building in the 1950's ever turned a profit. I think it was a long term investment that granted returns in other ways. Some good, some not so good. From the Wall Street Journal on the stimulus:

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years...

How many times do you think these guys took the Acela to DC to hang out with thier cronies. I guess they don't believe in the investment. Rupert's opinion page hacks are dumber than a box of rocks. This is a gem though:

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Would you like some cheese with that whine? Does no one on the R team understand how all transportation works? It's like they believe air traffic controllers come from magical fairly land and highway funds come out of an oil derrick. Where did they get these opinions from anyways? It certainly wasn't from the Manhattan news staff, most of whom I'm sure drive to work right?? I heard the cracker jack factory had some openings. Perhaps you could fill the boxes with this noise.

Quote of the Day

I just had to copy Frank:

So state gas taxes are sort of like tobacco taxes… if the tobacco revenue were funneled into advertising cigarettes.

Attempted Robbery

It's always a bad idea to start letting the state take money from transportation funding to plug holes. Look at where it has gotten us in California, $3 billion dollars gone and transit gets screwed. Well here is another case where putting your foot down is a good thing. The State of Hawaii wants to steal the transit tax but Mayor Mufi is saying no. Good for him.

Thinking Inside the Box Left at DOT

Yonah as usual has a great post up on the confirmation hearing of future Secretary Lahood. There were a few parts that bothered me, including the repackaging of old ideas as innovative. When Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota asked what kind of innovative ways to replenish the highway trust fund, he said:

Public/private programs… Tolling of new lanes, tolling of highways, is a different way of thinking about it… We need to think of those kind of opportunities… Differently than just the gasoline tax… We know that people are still using Amtrak even though gas prices went down, we know people in places like Chicago are still using mass transit.

While I like all the nods to transit that were mentioned, and there were a lot of those, the idea of taxing cars alone as the only way to get things done, even if it is tolling is a bit one sided. What about how the Red Line in Portland was financed by trading property in exchange for Bechtel building the line. Or the Seattle Streetcar where property owners taxed themselves for half of the capital cost.

We need to somehow tie transportation investments to land use and that could mean funding based on true costs and things like tolling for suburban roads, but also other ideas that are floating around out there that could change the way we think about these investments and their value (H+T). Let's start to think harder. It's like we don't know how to be super innovative anymore. Or maybe I'm just hoping for too much.

The Problem Using Auto Taxes to Pay for Transit

The Twin Cities funds transit partially through new car sales. In this recent economy its projected that the overall taxes from this method will be $200 million less than in 2003. The problem here is funding transit through increased auto sales. If more people have cars, how likely is it that they'll need increased transit alternatives? And in an economic downturn, the idea of funding transit through purchases is antithetical due to the greater need for transit during these periods, as evidenced in the last year. Even though transit receives a higher share of the car taxes today, that means a huge deficit for transit which in all likelihood means service cuts. But for capital projects, it means that like every other city, they have to hope for some funding that is likely not coming.

Despite a ridership increase of 6.8 percent for the first 11 months of 2008, the council predicts a budget shortfall of $72 million through the next biennium "just to maintain existing transit service and fund committed service expansions."

To me this is the problem with the stimulus, cities and regions which are the major economic drivers of this nation are getting the shaft when DOTs (aka Highway Departments) want to build new capacity to the outskirts. There's no more room for expansion in cities without tearing out more of the urban fabric. For too long we've funded roads to nowhere and with 50 years of the same policies, we have the problems we are in now. It's not like this is a new theory or something being tested, the new capacity idea has been tested for 50 years! We need to figure out a way to either make highways go through the same process as transit or loosen the strings for transit so lines can be built much easier. This also means more money for transit is needed in the stimulus package. Its time to start catching up.

Handing Out Money

Looks like the FTA had a busy end of the year giving out funding grants to cities around the country including Money for:

The West Corridor in Denver
The Seattle Link Extension to UW
The ARC in New Jersey
The Mid-Jordan Trax in Salt Lake City

Anyone seen any other news?

No Chump Change

If only we could link land use and transit better here in the United States. In Hong Kong and other places, development is part of the transit plan. Vancouver is about to hire some real estate folks to take care of its property development strategy.

TransLink intends to appoint a committee of local real estate experts to advise it on how best to make money developing land along future rapid transit corridors.

It's the latest wrinkle in TransLink's strategy to amass a major real estate portfolio in partnership with local developers that officials hope would generate at least $30 million a year and possibly much more.

Good for Chu

Caught this over at Planetizen:

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told the Wall Street Journal in September.

From the Wall Street Journal Article:

In a sign of one major internal difference, Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

At least someone in the administration gets it. Apparently Obama does not, at least publicly.

But Mr. Obama has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gas tax would be a "mistake" because it would put "additional burdens on American families right now."

We're Waiting...

Christof paints a picture of how things can go wrong in getting projects off the ground fast. It's mostly because of the federal funding structure. Too much uncertainty. Though I was heartened by comments made my Ray LaHood that I missed earlier that could remedy this type of situation in Houston.

At the end of his brief remarks, LaHood made a comment sure to endear him to every mayor and county leader who's complained about unfunded mandates and dictates from D.C.

"It's the local folks who know best their transportation needs," he said.

By local folks I hope he means local planning officials and residents, not people like Tom Delay.

Filing the Paperwork

Perhaps its release season for the FTA. Getting close to Christmas so lets approve some stuff. Yesterday it was the Central Subway environmental work and today its the Dulles extension. Looks like Ma Peters just couldn't shoot it down fast enough. I do agree with Richard though. I don't know if they are going to be able to sustain the ridership through the tube with the Orange line. It seems like it creates some serious capacity problems. Greater Greater Washington has some better ideas.

Pent Up Demand, Synergy, & The Market

Chris Leinberger is hopping on the urban train so to speak. Brad Plummer's post over at TNR's The Vine has already gotten some coverage at Greater Greater Washington and The Bellows but here's the money quote that discusses the lacking supply of walkable communities people want but can't afford.

By his count, some 30 to 50 percent of residents in U.S. metropolitan areas want to live in a walkable urban environment—a trend fueled by the growing number of single and childless couples, who will constitute 88 percent of household growth through 2040. Trouble is, he estimates there are currently only enough walkable neighborhoods to satisfy about 5 to 10 percent of metro residents, which is why rents in transit-accessible areas are so exorbitant.

The other side of this as both blog posts noted above is the issue of land use and zoning. I'm going to throw another wrench in and say there has to be a market. There have been a few rail projects that hope the build it and they will come system will work but there needs to be a concerted effort and existing market to make it work precisely because of the problems with our zoning code. An example of this is Cascade Station in Portland. On the way to the airport, the Bechtel company traded building the line for the land at the station. Unfortunately 911 hit a few days close to the opening of the line and the market dropped out from under the developers.

There's also the synergy issue. Places like the Pearl District and the South End in Charlotte were the next places to grow and close to the downtown urban market. I would say the transit was able to shape the development intensity. Further down the South Corridor has been a bit slower to take off. Over time as the prime properties are expanded, I expect the development to move further south along the line.

So while I see there is demand for walkable urbanism as Chris calls it, there are timelines of implementation that should be mentioned as well so that people don't expect overnight change. The Rosslyn Ballston corridor didn't take off over night either. I feel like the synergy point is an important one that gets missed from time to time when people expect TOD everywhere once the line opens. It's a long term investment with long term results. It will be interesting to see what happens in Denver as the opening of the whole transit system almost at once under the Fastracks program. I have heard some state that the push and focus that happened along the Southeast Corridor won't be replicated because the demand will be spread out among all the opening stations. It makes for an interesting test of the synergy idea and whether transit will be able to focus the intensity as it has in other corridors that had all the attention.

On the issue of paying for lines, I think developers will get a major boost from the infrastructure investment and should pitch in, or at least not be able to keep the massive windfalls from the investment that was made by everyone. But its also dependent more on vacant and extremely underutilized property appreciation. More money will be generated through vacant to build out than the appreciation of properties that already exist. Too many people think value capture will always be the answer when sometimes it will not, because the increment is too small to generate the funding needed. These issues and a ton more are discussed in a recent paper on Value Capture by the Center for TOD. We'll discuss that piece another time.

Also, a while ago I covered some key quotes in Chris Leinberger's book, The Option of Urbanism. Here's the series post by post.

Series Intro
The Favored Quarter
The Endless Landscape
Real Development Subsidization
Metro Brings Change
Subsidizing the Rich

Poll Results: Stop the Silver Lie

Wow. You guys really don't like the Silver Line Phase 3 BRT project or as locals like to call it, the Silver Lie. I know its not a rail project but I thought it was an appropriate project to throw into the mix. Second was BART to San Jose and third was the San Francisco Central Subway which unfortunately for the project opponents got one step further to Federal Funding at the FTA with environmental clearance today.


I saw a few other poll ideas in the last poll series so I'll bring those up soon. I'll probably wait a few days as tonight is a pretty busy news night.

Tell Em Whats Up

The Roadbuilders are looking for some stim. If so inclined, tell them about transit instead.