States Seeking Federal Funds for Rail

In contrast to the Alabama highway project I highlighted recently (See "Federal Highway Funding Going to 'Wrong Places'"), many other states are seeking to capitalizing on federal funding opportunities to maintain, upgrade, and expand their rail networks. I hope to see more reports of this type of state and local government recognition that "balance" in transportation options is a worthy investment and a characteristic that residents find both useful and desirable.

"States Seek Slice of Rail Funding", Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009

"Maryland Seeks $360 Million for Rail Upgrades", Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2009

Federal Highway Funding Going to "Wrong Places"

In my post about obstacles to public transportation in the U.S., I talked about incentivizing alternative transit options for commuters. A corollary to that concept is promoting transportation policy through funding. But federal highway funding policy threatens to keep the country locked in the status quo for some time to come.

The PBS segment highlighted in this report from Next American City magazine discusses a particular project included in the Appalachain Highway Development System, a federal program that matches federal to state dollars $4:$1 for included highway projects. As highlighted in the video clip, authorization for the Northern Beltway around Birmingham was included in federal legislation and largely bypassed local planning and projection processes. From the comments of Birmingham's Mayor Larry Langford, its clear the project faces some pushback from local government: "Yes, we can get from point A to point B but now what we are doing is cycling traffic around because of the grandiose idea that ‘we need more interstates.’ No, we don’t need more interstates—we need high-speed public transportation. But we’re always spending our money in the wrong places."

Aside from these specific issues, including the demolition of homes along the beltway's proposed route, projects such as this raise questions about the effectiveness of federal funding priorities. It seems clear from Mayor Langford's comments, as well as those of a local real estate developer, that Birmingham could use federal assistance in a number areas within the city itself. Rather than helping to fund urban renewal projects or stimulate economic growth within Birmingham, federal funds - 80% of 3.3 billion dollars, according to PBS - will instead go to highway project cutting through undeveloped portions of the surrounding countryside.

All of this is occurring at a time when the Obama administration, at least in words, is attempting to dramatically alter the general transportation policy of the United States. Certainly an appropriate starting place would be examine who federal transportation are allotted and awarded and how those programs affect the decisions of state and local lawmakers.

Obstacles to Expanding Public Transit in the U.S.

In a recent L.A. Times piece, David Lazarus discusses some of the obstacles currently inhibiting the expansion and creating of a "world-class" transit system in the United States. Read his article; he is much more eloquent than I. But I will make a few brief observations about some of these obstacles as I see them.

Transit expansion was one of the most touted pieces of the Obama administration's stimulus plans. However, the money for transit projects is focusing on new build projects while ignoring the fact that many local and regional transit systems are struggling to fund daily operation of their existing routes and services. (See "A Seat on the Bus?", The Nation, July 22, 2009.) As Lazarus indicates, transit must be affordable, reliable, and pleasant - characteristics which are hard to reach or maintain when funds are insufficient. Yes, expansion of transit necessitates new construction, but building support and enthusiasm for transit requires focus on customer service and efficiency.

While the stimulus funds grab headlines, local funding issues should not be ignored. Lazarus points out the difficulty in raising sales tax revenues for Measure R in L.A. County. In Denver, the Regional Transit District (RTD) and its FasTracks program are suffering a similar fate in efforts to add new light rail lines in the Denver metro area, including a much-needed connection to outlying Denver International Airport.

Incentivizing transit means discouraging car use for everyday commuting purposes. Parking fees, inhospitable urban driving (traffic), gas prices - all of these could contribute. However, the American attachment to the personal automobile is ingrained in most of us, and taking commuters out of the driver's seat will not be an easy task.

Land use and development (or redevelopment) must conform to, encourage, and permit (on a practical level) public transportation. Cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago have established transit systems that were in place early in each city's life. Development conforms to the transit routes there like it conforms to highways and roads in other cities. The difficulty that some big cities are facing now is retrofitting a transit system to a land use pattern built for automobile commuting. In Denver, finding locations for tracks, stations, and rail yards has involved contentious and controversial use of eminent domain. Even if these problems are solved, many station locations require an automobile to access them. Many potential riders simply opt to stay in their car for convenience's sake, even if it means spending more money on gas and parking. This is not an easy problem to solve and will continue to be a spur in the side of transit proponents seeking to build or expand intra-urban transit systems.

Those are a few thoughts. This is a topic that is likely to come up again here. If you have particular thoughts or questions you would like to discuss, please leave a comment on the site.

Thinking Comprehensively About Development

In an interview with PBS's Blueprint America, Rep. Jim Oberstar discusses the current state of transit policy in the U.S., his theory on how that policy needs to be reformed, and how his Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 would help steer the country in that direction.

I appreciate that Rep. Oberstar recognizes that land use and growth should drive transit development rather than the opposite. Though his bill deals specifically with transit funding and planning, the fundamental principle he seems to advocate is a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of proposed urban or suburban development. A common pattern in the U.S. today is for a new road to be built first, and development around that road comes later. This generally promotes piecemeal, spotty development. Such an approach really prevents planners from accurately projecting the needs of transit, utilities, and public services required for the development.

To me, Rep. Oberstar is promoting an approach that will strive, as much as possible, to get things right the first time. Comprehensive planning could help to avoid such problems like needing to retrofit a larger roadway or a rail system onto an area that is designed to accommodate it. Such planning relates to the sustainability of development. Are we promoting development that will be accessible, livable, and desirable for years to come? Or are we thinking only about capitalizing on opportunities in the short-term? Ideally, projects could be developed in a way that attempts to satisfy both the goals of attracting private investment and building a community that will become and remain a community rather than just another place on the map.