Reason Foundation

Give Managed Lane Conversions Time

Posted on May 16, 2013, 9:34am | Baruch Feigenbaum

Los Angeles’ new I-10 and I-110 HOT lanes have been a source of controversy. I wrote in a Los Angeles Daily News Op-Ed that there is a learning curve to any change and it may take up to a year for highway and transit users to receive all of the benefits of the conversion. After 12 months, the HOT lanes in L.A. are likely to significantly benefit highway users and bus riders. 

To reduce provide more reliable travel times and improve transit services, many state DOT’s are converting High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, San Francisco and Seattle have all made these conversions. 

Unfortunately, these conversions are rocky. Single occupant drivers have to decide when the travel time-savings are worth paying a small toll to use the lane. All motorists need to understand the new traffic patterns. Transit users have to acquaint themselves with the new more dependable transit services. These conversions are challenging; it typically takes up to one year for everyone to receive the maximum benefit from the lane. The roughest opening of a HOT lane was the I-85 conversion in metro Atlanta. However, since opening 18 months ago trips in the lane have almost tripled. 

The complete Op-ed is available here.

The new toll lanes on Interstate 10 and the 110 Freeway have opened to a lot of complaints, particularly from drivers not using them. While some have shaved 30 minutes or more off of their commutes by using the toll lanes during rush hour, many other drivers are understandably upset that traffic has gotten worse in the non-toll lanes. 

Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Northern Virginia, San Diego and Seattle have all converted car-pool lanes to toll lanes in recent years. And as drivers learned how to get the most value out of the lanes and save the most time, the lanes grew in popularity.

Atlanta converted car-pool lanes to toll lanes last year and had a rough start. But since October 2011, the number of toll lane trips has grown 270 percent, from 160,000 to 440,000 trips as of March 2013.

In Minneapolis, where car-pool lanes were converted to toll lanes in 2005, 76 percent of the public is satisfied with the toll lanes and 85 percent are satisfied with the traffic speed. 

The rest of the Op-ed is available here.

New Year, Same Old Transportation Budget from the White House

Posted on April 12, 2013, 6:00am | Baruch Feigenbaum

President Obama has released his 2014 transportation budget. It includes much the same nonsense as his 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 budgets. And since Congress is no more likely to approve the projects for 2014, it is just as pointless. 

Let’s detail the old proposals in the new budget: 

$50 billion in stimulus spending: In February 2011, September 2011, and February 2012, the President requested $50 billion in one-time stimulus spending. None of these three previous proposals ever made it out of a committee. Republicans have promised the fourth time will be no different. 

Transportation Trust Fund: In FY 2012 and FY 2013 the budgets proposed to convert the Highway Trust Fund into a Transportation Trust Fund. Why? The President wanted to transition Amtrak and high-speed rail funding into mandatory trust funds so that they would be exempted from discretionary funding caps. The problem is that the gas tax, which supports the trust fund is intended for highway use only since it is paid for by drivers and bus users. And this same gas tax is going broke; before MAP-21’s gimmicky accounting rules provided a temporary fix, the highway trust fund needed 10 bailouts from the general fund. What is the solution for an account going bankrupt in part because it funds activities it was never designed to support? In Washington, the answer is to add new activities but not the revenue to pay for them. For this reason, Congress clearly rejected this approach when it passed MAP-21. Yet less than a year after MAP-21 was signed, the President wants to undo this change and increase funding by $2.7 billion for Amtrak and $3.7 billion for high-speed rail. 

Increasing the statutory cap on passenger facility charges: In the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budget the President wanted to increase the statutory cap on passenger facility charges at the largest airports in exchange for removing these airports from the Airport Program grants. However, in the 2012 FAA reauthorization law Congress rejected this approach and did not change the funding level. This reauthorization locks in existing levels until 2015. This is actually a very good idea that would save several hundred million dollars and I must give credit to the White House for proposing it. But just because a new policy is a good idea that does not justify discarding current law in the middle of a long-term authorization. And just how Congress would implement this is a mystery. 

In his FY 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 budgets the president proposed creation of a national infrastructure bank. While the exact details changed, the proposal never went anywhere in Congress. The 2014 national infrastructure bank would use $10 billion in seed money to finance transportation, water and energy projects. There is no reason that the transportation projects could not rely on TIFIA. Congress substantially increased the funding of TIFIA in lieu of an infrastructure bank in MAP-21. And while loans are important, the White House has not articulated why it needs an infrastructure bank. 

The White House proposal includes a few elements that are more realistic such as pipeline user safety fees and the relocation of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration from its own administration to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Further, the funding proposals for Surface Transportation are more realistic than in the past. (Although the targets for the FAA remain completely unrealistic.) But too many of the proposals are completely unrealistic. 

But the White House has knowledgeable transportation experts (Not Ray LaHood) who know this budget proposal is completely unrealistic, so what is really going on? The budget has always been a political document more about setting priorities than offering a real outline forward. But President Obama’s transportation budgets have taken politics to a level never before seen. The White House’s goal is to build support behind these changes for the next transportation reauthorization whether it is the Surface Reauthorization in 2014 or 2015 or the Aviation reauthorization which may not occur until after the President leaves office. The budget has become completely political. 

Transportation in Washington D.C. has become almost all about building coalitions and scoring political points; there is very little focus on solving actual real world problems. Despite passage of long-range Surface and Aviation transportation bills, U.S. transportation policy is at a crossroads. A new funding source to supplement or replace the declining fuel tax and removal of waste in the transportation budget remains a priority. After four long years the administration has finally admitted that public-private partnerships are a critical part to solving the transportation problem. I had my own unrealistic hopes that this White House might get serious about fixing our transportation problems. But I should have realized that the President’s main use for transportation is politics. In reality this administration cares very little about actual transportation policy.

New Study Suggests Transportation Priorities for North Carolina

Posted on April 3, 2013, 2:45pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

The Hartgen Group and the Reason Foundation have released Transportation Priorities for North Carolina, a report recommending several significant changes to North Carolina’s transportation management process such as setting clear performance measures and using maintenance contracting. The election of both Governor Pat McCrory and new legislators to the North Carolina General Assembly provides a rare opportunity for North Carolina to examine its transportation system. The full report is available here and the executive summary is available here. The analysis considered all transportation modes: highways, aviation, freight and passenger rail, ferry, transit and non-motorized transportation. 

The report reviews prior studies, plans, visions, legislation and other state practices to identify suggestions for transportation improvements. The report also solicited suggestions from stakeholder groups and others familiar with North Carolina’s transportation system. One-hundred fifty seven separate suggestions are analyzed by goal, time frame, mode, cost or savings potential, feasibility and regional equity. 

The suggestions can be grouped into 3 categories. The first includes major changes to the transportation program that can be implemented by increasing maintenance and limiting  expansions to highways of statewide signficance. One major recommendation included in this section is to constrain the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to merit-based project selection and to shift some of the savings to maintenance, major projects and rural safety. Fully implemented, these recommendations could save $50 million annually. 

The second category includes several recommendations to strengthen maintenance management and project selection such as using head to head project evaluation, adding maintenance needs for funding formulas and contracting out maintenance. Fully implemented, these recommendations could cost $30 million but provide substantially improved system maintenance. 

The third category includes 10 smaller recommendations that are intended to strengthen Long-Range Planning and improve communications. These measures should also increase organizational efficiency by making increased use of design-build flexibility and strengthen measures of project and performance delivery. 

I want to highlight five report recommendations. More details on each can be found in the New Approaches section starting on page 41.

1) Public-Private Partnerships (PPP): While North Carolina has enabling PPP legislation, the state has made little use of PPPs. PPPs are not appropriate for all projects; typically PPPs are best for large or very large projects including new toll roads, new toll bridges, adding express toll lanes to congested freeways, major reconstruction of existing highways and major bridge replacements. PPPs have several major advantages including lower-risk funding, more total funding, greater risk transfer, guaranteed maintenance, minimized life-cycle costs, innovations. Additionally, these private partners pay taxes.

2) Tolling: North Carolina depends heavily on per-gallon fuel taxes as its highway funding source. But as the fuel-tax is not a dependable revenue source, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission recommended that fuel taxes be replaced as the primary funding source. North Carolina does not have the funding to substantially expand or rebuild any of its major freeways. Tolling freeways that need to be substantially rebuilt or expanded is one solution. However, any new tolling needs to be implemented carefully. North Carolina should NOT put a per-mile charge on existing highways but it should consider tolling new highways, new express or HOT lanes, and reconstructing and modernizing existing highways.

3) Priced and Managed Lanes: Traffic congestion is a major problem especially in Charlotte and the Research Triangle areas. Adding Managed Lanes can substantially reduce congestion. Such lanes have the added benefit of improving transit service. There are several different types of Managed Lanes; all allow vanpools and buses to use the lane for free but some allow free access to 2 or 3 person carpools while others require carpools to pay a small toll. Potential candidates for Managed Lanes in North Carolina include I-40 in Raleigh and I-77 and I-85 in Charlotte.

4) Interstate/Freeway Widening: A modernized widened Interstate system has three main benefits. First, it makes commuting quicker and less stressful. Second, it makes logistics and shipping more dependable. Third, easily navigable roads may increase tourism. While North Carolina uses a Level-of-Service D standard for widening highways, funding constraints may force the DOT to hold off on widening. (North Carolina DOT typically widens a highway from 4-6 lanes if it is expected to carry more than 58,400 to 67,900 vehicles per day depending on topography and truck share.) Some potential candidates for widening include I-26 in Asheville, I-40 near Hickory, Winston-Salem, Greensboro and Raleigh, I-77 between exits 4 and 31 and I-85 around Gastonia and between Kannapolis and China Grove.

5) Performance-Based Highway Maintenance Contracting: Many transportation agencies in the United States have contracted some road and highway maintenance. However, outside of highway landscaping the NCDOT has made limited use of such contracting. Current best practices in highway maintenance contracting rely on longer-term, multi-year performance-based road maintenance contracts. The public agency defines an end goal and the contractor decides how best to meet that outcome. Such contracts create clearly defined performance measures and timetables. The Transportation Research Board has praised contracting as a way to reduce agency costs, increase service, change to a customer-oriented focus, shift risks from public agency to private contractors and other benefits.   

More details are available here.

Reason recommends transportation solutions at the state and local level. Other recent state focused reports include: 

Examining 20 Years of U.S. Highway and Bridge Performance Trends

XpressWest Train Likely to Fail, Costing Taxpayers Up to $6.5 Billion

Reducing Traffic Congestion and Increasing Mobility in Chicago

Innovators in Action: Georgia DOT, Tolling Agency Officials on Atlanta's Managed Lanes Network

Posted on March 19, 2013, 4:20pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Earlier this month, I interviewed GDOT Deputy Commissioner Todd Long, incoming SRTA Executive Director Chris Tomlinson and SRTA Director of Operations Steve Corbin about the Georgia Managed Lane Network. 

There are different types of Managed Lanes. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes allow vehicles with a specified number of occupants [usually 2 or 3] to use the lane while High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes allow drivers who pay a toll to use the lane. All transit vehicles may use HOV lanes for free and all registered transit vehicles may use Georgia’s HOT lanes for free. HOT lanes are a better solution for most of Georgia’s corridors. 

These managed lanes can offer this reliable travel time 24 hours per day for many years because their tolls increase or decrease based on congestion in these lanes. Building a complete network is important because Atlanta has at least 10 distinctive employment centers. 

The I-85 conversion project between Chamblee-Tucker Rd and Old Peachtree Rd was the first managed lanes project in Atlanta. The launch was rough. Our initial toll rates the Monday of the launch were too high. The dynamic pricing algorithm placed too much emphasis on the congestion in the general purpose lanes and not enough emphasis on the light volume in the express lane. Many people wanted to use the lane but did not have Peach Passes. The combination resulted in relatively empty lanes. We needed to make adjustments and we quickly did. 

Several new managed lanes are being planned or under construction. We are currently extending the I-85 lane from Old Peachtree Rd to Hamilton Mill Rd. We are also building 2 reversible Managed Lanes on I-75 south from SR 155 to the I-675/SR 138 area. We hope to have this project under contract later this summer. Lastly, the I-75/I-575 North project is the largest of our efforts. This project will add two reversible lanes on I-75 and one lane on I-575. Bids for that project open in April and a record of decision is expected by next January. We plan to start construction next year; we estimate that project will open in late 2017 or early 2018. We have several other corridors we are looking at for the future. SR 400 and I-285 from I-75N to I-85N are the next two. Currently, we lack funding for either of those projects. All of these managed lanes projects will add capacity. 

The full interview is available here.

Like most states, Georgia faces a major challenge in delivering future transportation infrastructure given the declining purchasing power of the federal gas tax, the rising maintenance needs of an aging highway network and the increasing costs of construction materials. Georgia spends a majority of its gas tax revenues on maintenance; finding sufficient money to build a transportation system fit for the 21st century is very challenging. 

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA) have embraced a managed lanes network plan as the best way to use existing resources and reduce congestion on metro Atlanta interstates and freeways. There are different types of Managed Lanes. High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes allow vehicles with a specified number of occupants [usually 2 or 3] to use the lane while High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes allow drivers who pay a toll to use the lane. All transit vehicles may use HOV lanes for free and all registered transit vehicles may use Georgia’s HOT lanes for free. The current plan was approved in 2010 and is being implemented across the region. 

In March 2013, Reason Foundation Transportation Policy Analyst Baruch Feigenbaum interviewed GDOT Deputy Commissioner Todd Long, incoming SRTA Executive Director Chris Tomlinson and SRTA Director of Operations Steve Corbin to discuss the concept of Managed Lanes, current operations and future plans for the network. 

Baruch Feigenbaum, Reason Foundation: Many metro areas across the country are studying and implementing Managed High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes as a way to reduce congestion. What are the principles behind a HOT Lane Network and why is it appropriate for Atlanta? 

Todd Long, Deputy Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation: Due to right-of-way costs we cannot continually widen highways. And in a growing metro area like Atlanta, new unpriced highway lanes will quickly become congested again. This principle called induced demand limits the effectiveness of adding general-purpose lanes. When complete, the Managed Lanes Network will offer a reliable travel time throughout the metro area. These managed lanes can offer this reliable travel time 24 hours per day for many years in the future because their tolls increase or decrease based on congestion in these lanes. Building a complete network is important because Atlanta has at least 10 distinctive employment centers. We need the entire network to provide quality connections between residential locations and these centers.

Chris Tomlinson, Incoming Executive Director, SRTA: Metro Atlanta has significant congestion issues. As Atlanta continues to grow economically, congestion will become much worse. Although GDOT has eminent domain powers at its disposal, taking land for improvements is never popular. Additionally, it is not a realistic solution because of constrained funds and induced demand. GDOT realized that the combination of growing demand, limited funding, and lack of right-of-way made continuing on our current path of traditional road widenings unsustainable. So staff recommended that the State Transportation Board adopt a Managed Lanes plan. In 2007, the board adopted the Managed Lanes plan in which any additional capacity in metro Atlanta is to be “Managed.” Managing, or in this case pricing, capacity can help control congestion and increase reliability. The network primarily relies on adding new priced lanes; however, in limited situations it considers converting existing lanes. When considering a conversion we examine both performance of the corridor and accessibility of the lane. The first project, the I-85 demonstration project, was a conversion project. In 2008, Georgia received a $110 million Congestion Reduction Demonstration (CRD) Program Grant to Atlanta. This federal government transit grant led to the implementation of a managed lane, enhanced transit service and innovative technology. 

Feigenbaum: Does the network have to be priced? Did metro Atlanta consider a (HOV) network? 

Long: The plan started as an HOV network, in 2000, before High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes became popular. After conducting revenue studies, we determined that there was neither sufficient funding nor projected demand to justify building an HOV network. While the HOT network has higher user forecasts and more forecast revenue, total revenue is not quite sufficient to fund the project. Working with the private sector and using Public Private Partnerships can provide 20-25% of the total project costs. The best solution is a Managed Lanes network that utilizes PPPs. 

Feigenbaum: What are the specific benefits of tolling or managing a lane? 

Long: For the I-85 lane specifically, data shows a slight reduction in the travel times in the I-85 general-purpose lanes but over time the general purpose lanes have returned to about the same level of congestion as before the HOT lanes were installed. However, the managed lanes now offer a reliable trip for cars and buses compared to the previous HOV lane where there were significant delays. One of the biggest improvements in the corridor has been to transit service. Both the number of buses and total ridership have increased as a result of the federal grant and new managed lane. Both the regional transit agency Xpress and local operator Gwinnett County Transit (GCT) have increased service, which is exactly what we hoped.

Tomlinson: The number one goal is for the lane to provide a predictable and reliable trip for both auto and transit users. Our customers highly value this benefit and are willing to pay for this higher level of service.

Feigenbaum: Is the I-85 lane different from other HOT Managed Lanes? Have there been any issues with customers being charged the wrong toll?

Steve Corbin, Director of Operations, SRTA: SRTA has a special program to monitor reliability. If something happens in the lane that significantly affects motorists such as an accident, we have the ability to refund or waive a portion of the customer’s trip or waive a violation. This is used to address some special circumstances unique to having a non-barrier separated HOT facility. We are the only non-barrier Managed Lane in the U.S. to offer such a program. Our goal is to be the number one customer-centric tolling agency in the country. 

Occasionally a customer will have a payment issue. One of the best tests of whether or not we are providing good customer service is if we resolve the customer’s problem. For example, during the past calendar year we have had only a few customers who notified of us an issue with the price they paid for the Managed Lanes. All were resolved to the customer's satisfaction. We believe providing this level of service is the best way to find new customers.

The rest of the interview is available here.

Brookings Flawed Amtrak Study Should be Ignored

Posted on March 15, 2013, 10:01am | Baruch Feigenbaum

The Brookings Institution’s flawed study of Amtrak should be ignored. Below is my colleague Robert Poole's excellent critique of the study. After that I highlighted 2 particularly troubling methdological errors: 

Amtrak’s Future in Congress' Hands 

Five years ago, Congress enacted the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008, a five-year reauthorization of Amtrak. So PRIIA reauthorization is on the agenda of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee this year. And that explains why we have seen a growing number of articles and policy papers on Amtrak’s future in recent months. 

I had high hopes for the report released earlier this month by the Brookings Institution. Though its title, “A New Alignment: Strengthening America’s Commitment to Passenger Rail,” raised a caution flag, I hoped that this wording implied at least a recognition that with the federal government under enormous fiscal stress, Amtrak should be refocused on the commuter and short-haul (under 400 mile) routes where it loses the least taxpayer money. And the report does acknowledge this, noting that “short-distance routes are the engines of Amtrak ridership,” accounting for 82.9% of its ridership last year, and nearly all the increase since 1997 (the trough of Amtrak ridership since its creation). The report further notes that “only ten metropolitan areas are responsible for almost two-thirds of Amtrak ridership.” And it documents the increased trend of recent years for states that host these relatively popular routes to help subsidize them. 

When it comes to the long-distance routes, which are money sinks, the report switches gears. Instead of talking about operational efficiency, it claims these routes are the “geographical equity portion of the network,” even though they handle only 17% of total passengers while racking up 43% of operating costs. But cut them out in order to make the rest of the system closer to self-supporting? Unthinkable! These routes provide “unique national connectivity,” ignoring the far larger role of scheduled intercity bus service—a mode that goes completely unmentioned in the report. 

Along the way, I’m sad to report, the Brooking report perpetuates a number of myths about Amtrak. Here are several of them.

Myth 1: “Amtrak boasts 75% of the share of the passenger rail/aviation market between New York and Washington.”

But Andrew Selden, Vice President for Law & Policy of the United Rail Passenger Alliance, points out that according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics data, “Amtrak holds a market share for intercity travel in the Northeast Corridor [NEC] of well under 2%.” The Amtrak figure repeated by Brookings omits both passenger car and intercity bus passenger miles. Selden also notes that Amtrak’s load factor even on its premium-service Acela trains is only 50%, and conventional train NEC load factors are only 40%. So Amtrak can’t sell more than half the capacity it currently offers in this, its best corridor by far.

Myth 2: “Amtrak ridership grew by 55% since 1997, faster than other major travel modes, and now carries over 31 million riders, an all-time high.”

In a recent brief for Cato Institute, Randal O’Toole notes that using 1997 as the base year distorts the comparison, since that was the low point in Amtrak ridership. Going back to 1991, Amtrak passenger miles have increased only 8% between then and 2012, during which time airline passenger miles increased 68%. Amtrak’s share has also declined when measured per capita (passenger miles divided by population). In 1991 Amtrak’s annual ridership averaged 25 miles per person; today it has declined to 22 miles per person. That compares to 1,800 miles of air travel per person in 2012 and 4,200 miles of intercity passenger car travel per person. Overall, Amtrak carries just 0.36% of intercity passenger travel today, compared with 0.45% in 1991. 

Myth 3: “Operating balance” vs. profitability.

Instead of measuring Amtrak by the normal accounting rules of profit and loss, the Brookings report measures the routes in terms of “operating balance”—meaning operating revenues vs. direct operating costs. O’Toole notes two big problems with this. On the revenue side, state subsidies are included along with passenger fares. And on the cost side, the report accepts Amtrak’s screwy accounting that treats maintenance as a capital cost and therefore excludes it from operating costs. Even with all those flaws, of the 28 short-haul routes that Brookings touts as (together) showing a positive operating balance, only three are actually positive, with the revenue from the NEC carrying the other 25 loss-makers. 

Myth 4: “Washington’s historically outsized support of other transportation modes.”

This throwaway line alludes to many rail advocates’ distortion of the meaning of federal subsidies (equating total dollars spent with “subsidy”). But a subsidy is a grant of general tax money to cover the difference between what a transportation mode generates itself (in fares and user taxes) and its total capital and operating costs. The DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics published a landmark report on this in 2004, quantifying the extent of federal subsidy per passenger mile (1990-2002) for each mode of intercity passenger travel (though leaving out intercity bus, which gets very close to zero subsidy). The results were as follows:

Amtrak                        $186 per thousand passenger miles

            Airlines                       $    6 per thousand passenger miles

            Highways                   -$    2 per thousand passenger miles   

(The reason the highways figure is negative is that the feds collected slightly more in highway user taxes than they spent on highways.) 

I report all this in sorrow, as a life-long rail fan who has ridden passenger trains on every continent except Asia. I have high hopes for the privately funded passenger service, All-Aboard Florida, under development in this state by Florida East Coast Railway, and will probably use it for trips to Orlando, if it proves competitive with (not very good) airline service. But Amtrak in its current form has proved to be a costly failure. At the very least, Congress should stop the bleeding by terminating its long-haul routes, and relying more on the states to support those short-haul corridors they think worth subsidizing.

The report is surprisingly bad from an organization that typically produces such high-quality analytical reports. There are two methological errors that are so grievous I wanted to make special mention of them: 

1) When Brookings compared different transportation modes it used only plane, rail, and private automobile. It did not use the fastest growing mode of transit: intercity bus. Brookings explains that due to the lack of official statistics it did not include bus. But other transportation groups, including the Transportation Research Board, have found the numbers to include bus.

And intercity bus is the only mode that is competitive with Amtrak. Amtrak’s top speed on most routes is 79. Its average operating speed is much lower. Buses’ average speed on intercity routes is about 70. Yet according to the report, the most appropriate modal comparison is aviation. Really? How is an Amtrak train traveling at 70 miles per hour comparable to a plane flying at 500 miles per hour? If the U.S. had true high-speed rail that traveled 200 miles per hour, it would be fair to make comparisons on short routes. But with limited exceptions, travelers do not choose between conventional rail and plane. For most U.S. routes the only comparison to train is bus. 

2) The study does not accurately consider either federal or state subsidies. The study claims that Amtrak’s short distance corridors generated a positive balance. But in fact only 2-3 corridors or 8% of the total short corridors --the Acela and Northeast—generated a positive balance. The other 23-24 corridors received state funds in order to improve their balance sheet from a $351 million negative balance to a $166.1 million positive balance. More troubling, it does not appear that the Brookings report accurately counted national subsidies. Not counting subsidies appropriately distorts every number in the study. 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: I-85 HOT Lanes are Working

Posted on March 5, 2013, 10:12am | Baruch Feigenbaum

The launch of the Georgia I-85 High-Occupancy-Toll (HOT) lane in October 2011 from Chamblee-Tucker Rd to Old Peachtree Rd was rocky. Prices were too high, cars were too few, and many drivers were ready for a public hanging. 

Changing the usage rule for any lane is challenging. And making two changes is doubly risky. (This is the first managed lane conversion that changed two factors at one time.) Both the occupancy requirement, minimum occupancy for carpools increased from 2 to 3, and the cost, all 1 and 2 person vehicles were required to pay a small fee, were changed. The State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA), which operates the lane admits it made mistakes. 

And even though the lane is now working well, some refuse to use it. 

The biggest problem with the rocky launch was that people became angry with the Managed Lanes concept instead of merely the implementation. Over the last 16 months on any given day the I-85 HOT lane moves more people through the corridor than the previous High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane ever moved. Yet despite this fact some insist that traffic congestion is worse than before the conversion. 

Some transportation types thought the media coverage of the lane was overly negative. (This tends to happen when your new transportation project initially makes congestion worse.) Many of those types were happy that Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Mark Arum explained how and why the lane is succeeding. Arum looked at the lane from a business perspective:

Let’s pretend you own a business. In January of 2012 your business had 254,075 customers. Not too shabby. A year later, in January of 2013, you increased your number of customers to 401,183 people. That’s pretty impressive year-to-year growth, no matter what business you are in. Not only did you increase the amount of customers that you had, but each customer spent almost 12 percent more with you in January of 2013 then they did in 2012.

The numbers I referenced above are the year-to-year figures released by the State Road & Toll Authority last week on the I-85 Express Lanes. Between January 2012 and January 2013, the number of trips taken in the High Occupancy Toll lanes increased by 147,108 trips and the average daily fare increase from $1.26 per trip to $1.42 per trip.

I think the statistics show that the express lanes are working, and that more and more commuters are using them in their daily commutes.

I know the express lanes have their critics. Often very vocal, the complaints generally center around the perception that traffic has gotten worse since the installation of the express lanes.

As someone who covers the I-85 commute on a daily basis, I can assure you traffic is no worse on I-85 than it was when the HOT lanes were HOV lanes. Is it better? That’s debatable. I think all things being equal, if there is no bad weather, and no bad crashes, drive times have slightly decreased since the express lanes went into effect.

As more people acquired the necessary Peach Pass to use the express lane and saw the benefit of that option ridership naturally increased. The Toll Authority is required to keep the average speed in the express lane at 45 miles per hour or more. As more people use the lane, it makes it more difficult to keep those speeds. That is why we’ve seen an increase in the toll price year-to-year. That is why the daily average fair has jumped from $1.26 to $1.42. 

To those who are still upset, here are a couple of things worth considering. Changes are seldom easy. Georgia converted the lane for four reasons. But two of these reasons are often misunderstood. First, the I-85 conversion differed from other conversions in that the carpool lane was failing federal performance requirements. Atlanta’s HOV lanes were paid for with federal funding. That funding comes with the attached string that if the lane does not operate at 45 miles per hour or more 90% of time, the state of GA has to reimburse the federal government 100% of the construction costs of that lane. The I-85 HOV lane failed that requirement. And if the lane had continued to fail the requirement, there is an excellent chance that GA would have had to pay money it did not have to the federal government. Second, one of the major goals of the project was to improve transit since Atlanta has some of the lowest transit use of any major metro area in the country. The grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), not the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) offered a low-cost way to significantly improve transit service. 

Throughout the U.S., managed lanes offer choice to commuters, increase the number of people commuting by transit by decreasing the travel time, guarantee a reliable travel time to all drivers willing to pay a small toll, and provide access to emergency vehicles such as ambulances transporting those will life-threatening conditions to the hospital.  

The success of the I-85 managed lane indicates that such lanes should be a major part of solving Atlanta’s transportation problems. And Atlanta has three other managed lanes projects in the works. All three other managed lane projects will include new lanes, not existing lane conversions. Since customers will not be forced out of their lane the transition period should be much smoother. However, to receive the full benefit of these lanes metro Atlanta travelers have to accept managed lanes. And they have to be honest with themselves about solving congestion. With the federal debt, and absent a politically unpopular major increase in the gas tax, resources for new free capacity are going to be very limited. Commuters are urged to step back and take an objective look at managed lanes. For the Atlanta region, there is a lot to like.

President Obama 's SOTU Transportation Component Similar to "Groundhog Day"

Posted on February 13, 2013, 2:47pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

In last night’s State of the Union speech, President Obama’s displayed how transportation remains a low priority for the White House. After admitting that he did not focus on transportation in his first term, the President promised to devote more attention to it in his second term. Let’s hope this speech is not representative. It is fitting the President delivered the speech only 8 days from Groundhog Day since the President’s approach to transportation reminds many of the movie “Groundhog Day.” In the movie the main character, Bill Murray keeps reliving the same day until he changes his attitude. And similar to Groundhog Day unless the President changes his approach, he and the transportation system will keep reliving the same day again and again. 

In the State of the Union speech, a President has many issues to address. And unless we want a 3-hour speech (we don’t), a President cannot detail all plans. But in President Obama’s 6,421-word speech, he spent only 192 words or two paragraphs addressing transportation. Far more time was devoted to environmental issues (592 words) of less concern to most Americans. 

And the context of those 192 words is mostly forgettable:

America’s energy sector is just one part of an aging infrastructure badly in need of repair. Ask any CEO where they’d rather locate and hire: a country with deteriorating roads and bridges, or one with high-speed rail and internet; high-tech schools and self-healing power grids. The CEO of Siemens America – a company that brought hundreds of new jobs to North Carolina – has said that if we upgrade our infrastructure, they’ll bring even more jobs. And I know that you want these job-creating projects in your districts. I’ve seen you all at the ribbon-cuttings.

Tonight, I propose a “Fix-It-First” program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country. And to make sure taxpayers don’t shoulder the whole burden, I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children. Let’s prove that there is no better place to do business than the United States of America. And let’s start right away. 

Let’s address the President’s big ideas. A Fix-It-First program is a good investment. But most departments of transportation already have such a program. Since 2000, the majority of state, county and city DOTs have moved to a state of good repair mentality where they prioritize maintenance projects. These departments already spend 60, 80, and in some cases 100% of their money on maintenance. So fix it first is a good idea. But it was innovative in 2001; in 2013 it is standard practice.

And most places would welcome private capital. In fact they already do. Some 33 states have some form of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) law. The Federal Highway Administration’s Office of Innovative already disperses TIFIA loans, private activity bonds, section 129 loans and other innovative programs. Many transit projects such as the Eagle Rail Project in Colorado use PPPs. It is good the President supports these programs. But use of private capital is neither new nor innovative.

If the President wants to increase private sector involvement, he needs to spend more time changing laws and practices and less time on grandiose statements. For example, the President wants to use PPPs to improve ports. This is a great idea. But as long as ports get free taxpayer money in the form of federal earmarks to permanently deepen their harbors, they have no incentive to partner with private entities. President Obama needs to change the law so that ports must rely at least partly on private capital to deepen their ports. 

The issue the President most needs to address and did not is the cost of infrastructure projects in the U.S. One of the biggest problems is not the amount of money we spend but how we spend it. Many projects such as the New York City Second Avenue subway are ten times more expensive to construct in the U.S. than they would be in another country. Expensive art and a multitude of contractors, both largely unneeded, lead to some of these cost increases. Provisions such as Buy America and David-Bacon that increase capital and labor costs also play a role. Environmental Rules, while streamlined under MAP-21, increase costs by delaying projects. Infrastructure projects often take 12 years to be completed because of these rules. European projects can be constructed in half the time with less environmental damage than most American projects. 

The President’s approach to viewing transportation as primarily a jobs program does not help. Transportation increases economic development by quickly and efficiently moving people and goods from point A to point B. In comparison, the effects of hiring a small number of temporary workers are very minor. Further, more construction workers employed and more unnecessary federal laws such as those that require a living wage, inflate the project’s cost and therefore fewer projects can be built. On some level, the President may have to choose between transportation and another policy objective. And transportation is likely to lose. 

And one part of the President’s speech shows he still does not understand transportation. A CEO would choose a country with well-maintained roads and bridges over a country with poorly maintained infrastructure. But why are our bridges and roads not well maintained? Our President’s main goal is to build a multi-billion dollar high-speed rail system. And the local money that states like California are using for that project is money that they are taking from road and bridge maintenance. While a high-speed rail system is a nice dream, most states with constrained budgets cannot build high-speed rail, and upgrade and improve their transportation networks. As President Obama mentioned in his failed joke--politicians love ribbon-cuttings. And given a choice between the ribbon cutting of a new largely useless train line and the maintenance of existing highway and transit systems, politicians will choose the ribbon cutting. This combined with federal pressure to accept free money leads politicians to choose high-speed rail over maintenance.

And the President once again pushed for unrealistic, unworkable solutions. As Politico’s Morning Transportation elegantly puts it:

President Barack Obama bemoans the country’s crumbling infrastructure, offers up a $50 billion package of immediate spending on transportation infrastructure and says we should pay for a long-term boost in spending with war savings.

This is another example of reliving Groundhog Day. As mentioned earlier, the reason that the country’s infrastructure is crumbling is because the President has been pursuing large-scale, sexy construction projects instead of needed maintenance. Transportation projects take a long time to build; immediate short-term spending might fit the President’s Economic Stimulus goals but does not improve the transportation network. And the war savings money is fictional. The President is using money towards transportation that he never intends to spend. 

And transportation supporters in Congress are growing increasingly frustrated. All quotes are from Politico Morning Transportation. Oregon Representative DeFazio would like:

(A) new emphasis on delivery here.

Earl Blumenauer when asked about budget specifics:

Well, let’s see what comes with the budget.

And those are the Democrats. The Republicans were more skeptical. Jeff Denham asks,

It certainly is encouraging to hear him talk about building things across the nation. The real question is at what cost and where does the money come from? With high-speed rail, again, other countries are doing it. But they’re doing it at a far less cost than we are and they’re doing it in a far greater speeds with greater ridership numbers. 

And Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster was not a fan of the speech, 

He didn’t say anything. We’ve heard some of this stuff before; how’s he going to pay for it? I think he’s lying about CEOs — they want to invest in a country that has high-speed rail? Really? Tell me what CEO said that, that cares about high-speed rail. Manufacturers want to invest in a country that has roads that are built, they want the infrastructure to be right for the transportation system, but to say one of the reasons they’re going to invest in America and manufacturing plants is because of because of high-speed rail is crazy, 

While slightly better than past speeches, the President is still presenting variations on the same old transportation vision. He finally highlighted the importance of infrastructure maintenance and the use of the private sector, but some of his policies such as large grants for HSR show he still does not understand transportation. Hopefully, his next Secretary of Transportation will create a comprehensive transportation plan by considering why the U.S. does not have a better transportation system. Until then, the U.S. will remain stuck in a version of Groundhog Day. And unlike the movie all Americans, and not just Bill Murray, are reliving the same scenario again and again.

2012 Urban Mobility Report Indicates as Economy Improves Congestion Returns

Posted on February 13, 2013, 9:47am | Baruch Feigenbaum

The Texas Transportation Institute released its 2012 Urban Mobility Report last week. The major finding is that after remaining static since 2005, congestion is growing thanks to an improving economy.

While the report is best known for analyzing traffic congestion, it also details the role of transit in reducing congestion. Further, it explains how congestion worsens air quality. TTI has been producing this report annually since 1982. During that time, congestion has tripled in many U.S. metro areas. 

TTI made several changes this year, but the most noteworthy is a new metric, The Planning Time Index (PTI) that explains the amount of buffer time needed to reach a location on time in 19 out of 20 instances. According to TTI:

If the PTI for a particular trip is 3.00, a traveler would allow 60 minutes for a trip that typically takes 20 minutes when few cars are on the road. Allowing for a PTI of 3.00 would ensure on-time arrival 19 out of 20 times.

PTIs on freeways vary widely across the nation, from 1.31 (about nine extra minutes for a trip that takes 30 minutes in light traffic) in Pensacola, Florida, to 5.72 (almost three hours for that same half-hour trip) in Washington, D.C. 

The best way to reduce the PTI may be managed lanes and managed arterials. Managed lanes are freeway lanes that are free to buses and large carpools. Single person vehicles may use these lanes for a small fee that varies based on congestion. This small fee helps keep managed lanes free-flowing 24 hours a day even during rush hour. Managed arterials are bridges or tunnels at major intersections that drivers can choose to pay to avoid congestion. Managed arterials are free-to-use for transit vehicles With managed lane and managed arterial networks commuters are guaranteed a congestion-free ride and can factor in less planning time. As a result, commuters will have more free time for other activities. 

The traditional metric that TTI uses to measure congestion is the Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter. The ten metro areas with the worst congestion from heaviest to lightest are Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia and Seattle. 

As these metro areas are the largest in the country, there are no major surprises. Although some areas with relatively smaller populations have relatively large congestion problems while some of the biggest metro areas have relatively moderate congestion issues. 

Washington D.C., the 8^th largest metro area, ranks 1^st in congestion. This is due to several reasons including the strong regional economy, the large number of face-to-face jobs where personal contact is important and the poor regional freeway network. Despite the presence of a strong subway network, D.C. area residents still have the worst commute in the country. Other metro areas where congestion is more severe than population include San Francisco, Boston and Seattle. 

Chicago, the 3^rd largest metro area, ranks 8^th in congestion. This is likely the result of a poor regional economy, better freeway and arterial network, and stronger regional cooperation. The other major metro area where congestion is less severe than population is New York City. 

As the economy improves congestion will increase. This is the time for metro areas to develop a comprehensive cost-effective, congestion-reduction strategy. This includes new managed lanes, new managed arterials and new, targeted freeway and arterial widenings. This strategy also includes enhanced use of tolling, cost efficient local bus/BRT systems, and increased use of intelligent transportation systems. 

Metro areas that are improving thier transportation system fare better than metro areas that are not upgrading thier systems. Let’s take a closer look at one of the latter--Atlanta. Atlanta’s congestion increased from 13^th worst in 2011 to 7^th worst in 2012. This is a large jump due in part to new methodology. However, Atlanta’s increase in population, increase in vehicle miles of travel and decrease in transit usage are the larger factors. Atlanta is on the road (bad pun intended) to returning to its early 2000’s pattern of severe congestion. 

An improving metro economy is one reason for the growing congestion. After lagging behind the rest of the country for much of the recovery, metro Atlanta foreclosures recently hit a six-year low. The unemployment rate has declined from almost 11% to 8.5%. According to William Frey of the Brookings Institute, the most important growth factor of the past 50 years has been average January temperature. And while Atlanta will likely not return to its growth rate of the 1980’s and 1990’s, it figures to continue its increase in population. 

Inadequacy of the transportation network is the other contributing factor. Atlanta has not substantially widened its freeway or arterial network over the last 20 years. It has not added redundancy or upgraded insufficient suburban arterials either. Nor has it invested in a high-quality, low-cost bus and BRT network. A metro area that is growing but not improving its transportation network is going to face major congestion problems. In a way the recession saved Atlanta from far worst congestion. But with growth continuing Atlanta remains without a comprehensive plan to solve its transportation challenges. 

Other metro areas such as Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles and Miami with major congestion problems are investing in managed lanes, managed arterials, reconstructing arterials, and implementing cost-effective transit service. Meanwhile Atlanta is doing very little. Without improvements, increased growth will lead to increased congestion. The smart money says Atlanta’s travel time index will be much worse than 7^th in the future.

The Top Transportation Issues to Watch in 2013

Posted on January 8, 2013, 10:57am | Baruch Feigenbaum

After detailing the 12 biggest transportation stories of 2012, it is time to detail the transportation issues to watch in 2013. 

1) New Ports/Waterways Bill: Ports, inland waterways, and the freight they move are often overlooked in transportation. Currently, the federal government collects a harbor maintenance tax for maintenance dredgings. However, the Army Corps maintains the trust fund and decides to whom and how to distribute that funding. Tax money from ports, such as Los Angeles, that have naturally deep harbors support ports such as Charleston that do not. And other port users such as ships do not pay anything to maintain the harbor. The Army Corps typically spends less than half of that funding on dredging and keeps the remainder in an account. Inland Waterways have a separate trust fund supported by a $0.20 per gallon tax on barge fuels. But $0.20 raises very little funding; it is not a sustainable, robust funding source for waterways. Meanwhile, East Coast ports are seeking earmarks to permanently deepen their harbors ahead of the Panama Canal. However, with the earmark ban in the house, it is not clear how they will obtain any funding. Senators Graham and Lindsey introduced a bill last October and will likely introduce a similar version in the 113^th Congress. But whether there is sufficient motivation for a bill is unclear. 

2) Sustainable Funding Source for Transportation: While Congress recently approved a new 2-year surface transportation bill, 2 years passes very quickly. As a result, the transportation committees in Congress will be hard at work on a new bill. The top issue to address is funding. For the past 50 years, Congress has been able to rely on the gas tax as the major source of transportation funding. As the federal government has funded ever more transportation projects, Congress has started tapping the general fund. Due to inflation and more fuel-efficient vehicles the gas tax has lost more than 50% of its buying power since it was last increased in 1994. For MAP-21 rather than increasing taxes or cutting bloated unnecessary programs, Congress created an accounting gimmick that uses 10 years of transportation revenue to create a 2-year program. While the gas tax will continue to play a role in the future, Congress will need a new funding source. More general funding is possible; but this further exacerbates the debt and has no users-pay users-benefit link. A national sales tax is another option but it also suffers from the users-pay problem. TIFIA and bonding are excellent ways to leverage funding but require a base amount of money and are not appropriate for every project. Value Capture works well for some but not all transit projects. A combination of mileage-based-user fees and tolling are most experts top choice. But an MBUF system is several years from a national rollout. And both MBUF and tolling are opposed by short-sighted politicians. States are likely to take a larger role in funding transportation because the funding challenge for the next bill will be major. 

3) Ray LaHood: President Obama asked Secretary LaHood to stay on temporarily past the election to provide stability in his cabinet. It is not clear if LaHood will stay on for another term. LaHood announced he was leaving after one term but then walked the decision back last fall. Transportation types are hoping Mr. LaHood goes. LaHood, with no professional transportation knowledge of any kind has not been a forceful advocate for transportation and many industry types hold LaHood and Obama responsible for not enacting a new 6-year transportation bill in 2009. A new transportation secretary could explain the importance of transportation to both the President and the American people. He or she could bring analytics back to the DOT and make substantial changes to policy. The three most likely candidates are Ed Rendell, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Steve LaTourette. Of those three, Rendell is the strongest choice. He has been a mayor, and a governor and has worked in policy. He helped set up Building America’s Future to address infrastructure challenges. And as a moderate Democrat from a swing state he could be politically useful to the administration. Villaraigosa has shown a passion for infrastructure. And the President would like to add a Hispanic to his cabinet. But Villaraigosa has no statewide experience. He is not as much a national figure as Rendell. And he is more of a cheerleader for transportation than an analyst. The next Secretary of Transportation should be part cheerleader, but he also needs to understand transportation and be able to balance facts objectively. LaTourette is the weakest choice of the 3. LaTourette abandoned transportation in the House to serve on Appropriations. He announced in early 2012 he wanted to reclaim his seniority on the Transportation and Infrastructure committee and run for Chair. And, the House steering committee's decision to give the gavel to somebody actually on the T & I committee played a promiment part in LaTourette's decision to retire from the House. LaTourette may not have the best personality for a cabinet position as he has a bit of a temper. 

4) Changes to TSA: The organization set up by Republicans in the wake of 9/11 has proven to be an enormous mess. And fixing the problem is a challenge. Last year Congress required TSA Administrator Pistole to start approving contracted screening at interested airports. Pistole stopped TSA contracting in 2011 because he concluded that there were no cost-savings from contracting. (The facts said otherwise.) But even with the program restarted only 16 airports have opted out in the 11 years the program has been in existence. The TSA has failed to improve security because it concentrates on screening passengers at the front of the airport but leaves the back door wide open. There is no protection from intruders entering the secure side of an airport through a fence or waterway as happened earlier this year at Kennedy International Airport. In Newark a knife-wielding intruder got onto the tarmac by scaling an eight-foot fence. In Dallas a group bypassed all security and posted a video of themselves on YouTube. These problems could be remedied if airports and not TSA oversaw screening on their property. Currently, TSA has dual purposes—conducting the screening and overseeing the screening process. Having airports run security screening and allowing TSA to focus on overseeing screening would end this conflict. But this would require interim legislation. With John Mica in charge of the oversight committee and TSA disapproval from both Democrats and Republicans, Congress could pass a bill to make small but significant changes to TSA. But real change may have to wait until the next aviation bill and a new president. 

5) Bill Shuster in charge of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: Shuster formerly headed the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee but with former chair John Mica term-limited, and now on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, Shuster takes the Chairman’s gavel. Nobody knows how Shuster will differ from Mica. But most transpo types believe he will be less partisan and have better working relations with the Senate. Shuster’s priorities include a new water resources bill, a railroad reauthorization and groundwork for the 2014 surface transportation bill. Shuster believes that high-speed rail can work in the northeast but not the rest of the country and wants to privatize Amtrak. Shuster is as much if not more of a transportation wonk than Mica and has an ability to explain complex transportation terms in simple language. While Shuster’s dad, Bud, ran the T & I committee with an iron fist from 1995-2001, and earmarked numerous pointless projects for his Pennsylvania district, Shuster Jr. will be more likely to seek consensus. 

6) New Amtrak Bill: With Amtrak up for reauthorization in 2013, this could be a critical year for the government corporation. Amtrak has never made a profit; only its higher speed Acela service makes money. All other lines require large annual subsidies from the government. Republicans want to end subsidies and privatize the successful Acela service. There is some precedent as other countries such as Japan have privatized some of their high-speed rail lines. Much has changed in the 163 years since the B & O railroad reached the Ohio River. Passenger service was initially profitable for railroads but with new more cost-effective forms of transport such as cars, buses and planes and faced with bankruptcy, Class I railroads offloaded their passenger service to the federal government in 1970. With the exception of the northeast corridor, passenger rail service has continued to lose money over the last 43 years. With planes offering the speed advantage, buses offering the price advantage, and cars offering the customization advantage, passenger-rail has no advantage over the other transport modes. However, politics are powerful and with jobs at stake Amtrak will most likely continue to receive enough support to survive although not enough to create a robust system. 

7) HSR in California: High-speed-rail in California moves onward. CA HSR is similar to the latest big movie flop. It is completely unbelievable but the producer (CA governor Jerry Brown) and the director (Chairperson Dan Richard) want a legacy. That the legacy will be the state drowning in debt is less important than that they will be remembered. Only in this story, federal taxpayers, not the studio head, will be on the hook. And unlike the studio head who could kill this mess, taxpayers seem powerless to derail this project. Republicans from California tried. But since Democrats now have a supermajority in Congress, even with many Democrats trying to kill the project it may live on. What are the facts? To reduce costs the latest version of the CA HSR business plan proposes for commuter and high-speed-rail trains to share tracks around Los Angeles and San Francisco. While this cuts $30 million from the costs, it makes the system less than high-speed. Further, it makes impossible one of the explicit reasons for building the system—to provide a 2 hour and 30 minute trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The slower speed will make it more challenging for the service to attract passengers. Most other high-speed-rail lines have attracted primarily airline passengers. Drivers are unlikely to use rail because they value the flexibility to stop for food or stretch their legs or need the car at the other end of their destination. The funding plan relies on money from a cap and trade pollution system intended for environmental purposes and private investors who want to lose money. The circuitous route through the mountains further increases the costs. As a result the GAO estimates the project needs $42 billion from U.S. taxpayers, most of who live far from California. It was time to pull the plug two years ago and concentrate on HSR in the Northeast Corridor. But the politics says this project limps on. 

8) Space Travel: With the end of NASA’s space shuttle, privatized space travel is likely to take off over the next five years. While NASA can pay the Russians to get people and cargo to the international space station, Russia-U.S. relations may not make that realistic. Four private companies are competing to provide a vehicle for the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability program. SpaceX, the farthest along, has already carried people and cargo to the space station. Blue Origin, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada are also in the running. NASA has unfunded agreements to collaborate on tourism efforts with United Launch Alliance, Alliant Technsystems/ATK, and Excalibur Almaz. Another company, Golden Spike, plans to charge $1.5 billion for a round-trip expedition to the moon. NASA would like additional federal funding to speed-up development of its craft. But in a time of high budget deficits, it is hard to argue space travel is needed. What is more likely is that a private company such as SpaceX develops a system for tourists and NASA forges a partnership with the company to use its vehicles for its missions as well.

Top 12 Transportation Stories of 2012

Posted on January 3, 2013, 10:20am | Baruch Feigenbaum

The start of the new year provides a great opportunity to look back at the major transportation stories of the past year. 2012 was an active year in transportation. Below are the top 12 stories of 2012 in order of importance. 

1) Passage of MAP-21 Surface Transportation Bill: The U.S. had been operating on the tenth extension of SAFETEA-LU--the last multi-year transportation bill that expired in 2009. Most observers believed that a new transportation bill would have to wait until 2014 since transportation was not a big priority for decision makers. In addition Congress lacked the financial resources and the House instituted a moratorium on earmarks. However, many failed to realize how hard Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman John Mica would work for a bill. The new bill had several noteworthy aspects. It did not include a major increase in funding. In fact in order to keep the same funding levels, the 2-year bill borrowed against the next 10 years of revenue. Still, holding the line on funding increases is a big deal--especially in Washington D.C. The bill also expanded the TIFIA program from $150 million in funding to $1 billion. In addition, the bill slightly expanded the tolling provisions. 

2) Passage of a new Federal Aviation Administration Bill: Often overshadowed by the new surface transportation bill, the U.S. had been operating under the 23^rd extension of the last FAA bill that expired in 2007. The new bill creates a framework for the needed Next-Generation radar system. But without much funding, implementation of the system will be slow. The bill also forced TSA to resume accepting applications that want to opt-out of federal screening. This option was written into the original post 9/11 TSA bill. However, clarification was needed after TSA Administrator John Pistole refused to allow any additional airports to opt out of federal screening. The new bill also creates rules for future drone flights. 

3) Hurricane Sandy, Natural Disasters and Transportation: Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the vulnerability of much of the East Coast to major storms. A Senate bill to provide $60 billion in aid died in the House leaving the region in limbo. House Republicans refused to pass the Senate bill for two reasons. First, because of the size of the bill, most of the Sandy revenue came from the general fund not the transportation fund. Second, much of the $60 billion in funding had little to do with emergency relief. While the logical long-term fix would be for the government to stop backing mortgages to residents who live in flood plains, this country seldom does logical. Since future disasters are inevitable and the Northeast’s run of good luck may be over, the U.S. should provide a realistic level of emergency funding, fund infrastructure directly affected by the storm only, and decide how best to distribute such funding. More info is available here. 

4) Managed Lanes Momentum: The concept of adding priced capacity continues to gain momentum. Transportation Planners know that widening highways in fast-growing metro areas can be a frustrating exercise. While mobility is enhanced in the short-term, growth and the resulting additional trips return the highways to its congested state in approximately 2-5 years. Priced lanes offer a long-term congestion reduction strategy and in some cases help fund new improvements. The biggest opening was the I-495 lanes in Virginia from I-95 to the Dulles Toll Road. These lanes provide much needed new capacity for one of the busiest interstates in the country. Virginia is also converting the I-95 HOV lanes from Dumfries to I-495 to Managed Lanes and extending the lanes south to Stafford. Texas added Managed Lanes on the North Tarrant Express in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. California is in the process of converting many of its HOV lanes to HOT lanes. While political challenges remain, managed lanes continue to be the most realistic way to add capacity in urban and suburban areas.

5) Failure of Georgia Transportation Investment Act in 9 of 12 regions: While 2/3 of local transportation ballot measures pass, some fail and some that fail do so in spectacular fashion. The latter describes what happened in the metro Atlanta region. While the poor state of the economy and the state’s conservative electorate were factors, the entire process was a mess. The Georgia legislature, which could have increased funding by itself, punted the issue to local governments. These governments made political decisions, not transportation decisions on which projects to add. The MPOs attempted to create the best list of projects but were told by politicians which projects to choose and how much those projects would cost. The top-down campaign antagonized the tea party, the Sierra Club, and the NAACP. The advertising campaign was a failure; the more times citizens saw the pro-tax adds, the less likely they were to vote for the tax. While most experts expected the tax to fail, the 37%-63% margin was surprising. What are the takeaways? The defeat is not necessarily transferrable to other areas. But other metros should ensure that any proposed tax actually funds merit-based transportation projects. Funding economic development through a transportation tax was not popular in metro Atlanta. And the Atlanta community needs to find a better way to explain and promote transportation.

6) San Juan Airport Privatization: Most airports in the United States are publicly owned and operated. Most cities resist privatization of their airports at all costs. This is unfortunate since running an airport is a specialized skill in which most public entities do not excel. However Governor Fortuno of Puerto Rico approached the situation differently. Fortuno led the process by approving a concession agreement with American Airlines and a request for proposals in 2011. In 2012, the Commonwealth accepted bids. While the deal has not yet reached financial close, its new Governor Padilla, from a different political party, supports the privatization and is trying to finalize the transaction. This bipartisan effort may lead more cities to consider airport privatization in 2013. Privatizing airports may be especially intriguing to struggling cities, which can make a lot of money from leasing or selling their airport. These cities can use those funds to support education, public works or unfunded pension programs. 

7) High-Speed Rail--The Saga Continues: High-speed-rail remains in the news both domestically and internationally. California continues to be the biggest U.S. story. Legislators approved Governor Brown’s request to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter approved bonds including $2.6 billion that will fund the central valley line. This occurred after the CA HSR Authority approved another new business plan that allows its high-speed rail trains to share the track with local commuter rail trains in San Francisco and Los Angeles. This reduces the total price tag from $98 billion to $68 billion. But that plan still relies on billions from the federal government, revenue from an untested cap and trade plan that is intended for environmental uses and a private partner that would fund this money-losing venture. The circuitous route from Los Angeles to San Francisco is another major flaw. The most logical HSR route in the United States is the northeast corridor. While construction on this route would be expensive, its density may justify its high costs. Yet President Obama seems to have little interest in this corridor. Fortunately other countries seem to be a little more logical. Portugal has abandoned its high-speed rail plans. Spain has halted construction on most new lines. China may be the biggest country to watch. While the country halted construction as a result of its latest HSR crash, it appears to be building HSR again with a lower top speed of 186 miles per hour. Most average Chinese cannot afford the train and remain opposed to the construction. China’s central government does not concern itself with whether its citizens approve of its spending but the $640 billion debt from building HSR might cause China to slow down future construction.

8) Growth of BRT over Rail: While intercity HSR continues to be popular, intracity Bus-Rapid-Transit continues to gain popularity over new rail. BRT is often less than a tenth the cost of rail. And BRT comes in many different forms. Expressway BRT makes use of managed lanes, either HOT or HOV, to offer a reliable travel time on highways. Arterial BRT makes use of queue jumpers and special lanes to move faster than the regular traffic on busy arterials. And a new concept called managed arterials would allow buses to use arterials with tolled grade separations to provide a faster, more reliable travel speed. Such a BRT network can be coupled with a robust local bus network to create a comprehensive transit system. Over the past five years, the implementation of new BRT lines has been increasing while the implementation of new light-rail lines has been decreasing. 

9) Obama White House MIA in Transportation: Discussing the White House’s lack of involvement in transportation is like beating a dead horse but the lack of realistic ideas from Pennsylvania Avenue remain a major problem. The White House has proposed stimulus style spending and infrastructure bank grants. But neither of these ideas helps transportation. Stimulus spending is bad economic policy but it is especially foolish for transportation. Most of the needed transportation projects are long and take multiple years. Short term spending only funds repavings and minor repairs. In order to make such spending effective, state DOT’s and MPO’s have to move money around, a convoluted approach for sure. The President’s infrastructure grant program chooses projects on a political basis. If the selection criteria were merit based that might help, but most transportation watchers are not interested in another TIGER based stimulus grant program. The President’s lack of interest in transportation has had negative consequences for fellow Democrats. The White House’s failure to pass a new bill in 2009 helped lead to the defeat of many moderate democrats in 2010; this year the President had to accept a much less urban-friendly bill. Replacing Ray LaHood with someone with both a background and passion for transportation would help. 

10) Tidewater Tunnels: It was a busy year for transportation in the Commonwealth. VDOT reached a deal with Elizabeth River Crossings to begin construction on the new Midtown tunnel. The deal doubles capacity of the Tunnel and improves both the quality and quantity of bus and ferry transit service between Portsmouth and Norfolk. While the tunnel will have a toll between $1.59-$1.84, this is 40% lower than the initial estimate. The project also makes substantial upgrades to the Downtown Tunnel and extends the Martin Luther King Expressway from London Blvd to I-264. Both projects will help relieve traffic congestion on the area’s bridges. And the user-pays user-benefits nature of tolling is fairer for taxpayers. Virginia advanced two lesser projects in the I-95 reconstruction and the new expressway between Petersburg and Norfolk. I-95 tolling for reconstruction is a promising idea but the current plan to have one tollbooth near the North Carolina border needs to be reworked. Building an unneeded expressway with money the state does not have is a bad idea and should be abandoned. 

11) Chicago Infrastructure Bank: In contrast to his former boss, former White House Chief of Staff and current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel is heavily involved in transportation. In April, Emanuel and the city council approved a new infrastructure bank to increase private investment. The Infrastructure Trust would review projects that generate revenue and projects such as a BRT system could be funded by the private sector. Many investors have already put up more than $2 billion for the Infrastructure Trust. The Infrastructure bank provides access to funds the city could not otherwise obtain and is also a hedge against risk. The city can offload risk to private investors for projects with uncertain benefits. At the same time, Chicago has to create well-structured deals. Chicago undervalued its parking meters in 2008. As a result the city negotiated a poor deal for itself. True infrastructure banks are an excellent way to increase funding without raising taxes. In today’s economy more cities may look at Chicago’s example. 

12) TSA In the News: The Transportation Security Administration is like a bad song on Top 40 radio. Every time it makes news it annoys and yet nobody can find a way to get rid of it. TSA screeners steal personal items and abuse thier power. But more significantly the agency has failed to improve security. Why? The TSA concentrates on screening passengers at the front of the airport but leaves the back door wide open. There is no protection from intruders entering the secure side of an airport through a fence or waterway as happened earlier this year at Kennedy International Airport. In Newark a knife-wielding intruder got onto the tarmac by scaling an eight-foot fence. In Dallas a group bypassed all security and posted a video of themselves on YouTube. These problems could be remedied if airports and not TSA oversaw screening on their property. Currently, TSA has dual purposes—conducting the screening and overseeing the screening process. Having airports run security screening and allowing TSA to focus on overseeing screening would end this conflict.

Federal Aid Program for Transportation Disasters Needs Major Changes

Posted on December 20, 2012, 11:12am | Baruch Feigenbaum

Hurricane Sandy has exposed problems with the Federal Emergency Relief Program. While critical infrastructure damaged by storms needs to be quickly replaced, the current national program lacks fiscal restaint, checks to make sure the funding is related to emergencies, and a systematic approach. 

First a little history: The highway emergency relief program was first authorized in 1956. As part of the Moving Ahead for Progress (MAP-21) bill, the latest reauthorization of the program dedicates $100 million per year from the highway trust fund. Since $100 million is not sufficient for major disasters, MAP-21 authorizes additional funds on a “such sums as may be necessary” basis. Before Hurricane Katrina this funding came from the highway trust fund. However, with trust fund balances decreasing, in 2005 Congress designated the General fund as the source of future supplementary funding. These funds are typically provided in annual or emergency supplemental appropriations. Funds expended in in the first 180 days for emergency repairs to restore essential traffic, to minimize the extent of damage or to protect the remaining facilities are reimbursed 100% by the federal government. Permanent repairs, which are intended to restore damaged bridges and roads to pre-disaster conditions and capabilities, receive the same 80-90% share as they would receive as a federal-aid highway facility.

Transit facilities have a similar program authorized in MAP-21 that covers most Capital and some Operating costs. There is no dedicated money; all funding comes from the general fund. While the federal share is supposed to be 80%; the DOT Secretary may waive the local match. 

Since emergency funds are authorized on a “such sums as may be necessary” basis, the program often receives substantially more funding than is budgeted in any given year. In February 2007, the Government Accountability Office released a report that expressed concerns about the budgetary implications of increased ER spending. As the ER program is mostly funded by general fund revenues when the…

[N]ation faces a pending fiscal crisis, raising concerns about future use of the general fund and the financial sustainability of the ER program ... ER funds are not intended to replace other federal-aid, state, or local funds to increase capacity, correct non disaster-related deficiencies, or make other improvements. However, contributing to future financial sustainability concerns is the fact that the scope of eligible activities funded by the ER program has expanded in recent years with congressional or FHWA waivers of eligibility criteria or changes in definitions. As a result, some projects have been funded that go beyond repairing or restoring highways to pre-disaster conditions ... [such as] projects that grew in scope and cost to address environmental and community concerns.... Congress has also directed that in some cases the program fully fund projects rather than requiring a state match. 

The report noted that from 1990 to 2005, 86% of ER program funds were made through supplemental appropriations. This further complicated budgeting and led to project backlogs as states waited for Congressional action on this supplemental appropriations legislation. The nation faces an even bigger fiscal crisis in 2013 yet the emergency appropriations process continues unchanged. If the Senate approves President Obama’s $60.4 billion in Sandy requested-aid, the annual appropriations will be only .00016% of the total or less than 1/1000 of 1%. The $60.4 billion is more money than the budgets for the departments of Interior, Labor, Treasury, and Transportation combined. Clearly, this is not good budget policy. 

And then there is the money in the relief bill that has nothing to do with Hurricane Sandy. Unrelated items include $2 million to repair roof damage at the Smithsonian buildings in DC that pre-dates the storm; $4 million to repair sand berms and dunes at the Kennedy Space Center some 1,000 miles away from the storm; $41 million for clean up and repairs at eight military based along the center’s path including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The FBI wants $4 million to replace office equipment and furniture while the Customs and Border Protection wants $2.4 million to replace “destroyed or damaged vehicles, including mobile X-Ray machines. The Small Business Administration is seeking $50 million for Women’s Business Development Centers among other priorities. One federal official’s quote is priceless. In defending some of the spending to ABC news he said, “On the federal items, we know what the damage is because we are the federal government.” 

The budget request also repeats an Obama Administration pattern of funding substantial improvements to infrastructure rather than sufficient repairs in an emergency budget request. Emergency appropriations are intended to repair conditions to pre-existing status not make improvements. The $13 billion requested for mitigation projects to prepare for future storms should be a part of future annual budgets not an emergency appropriation. Similar to its efforts to make the Gulf of Mexico cleaner than it was prior to the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, the government is using an emergency process to make non-emergency repairs. Checked by Republicans on regular spending, the White House is trying to find projects already rejected by Congress. 

Further, while there has been a great deal of research into planning for disasters, there has been little research or discussion into how to distribute emergency transportation funding. The 2007 GAO report recommended tightening the eligible criteria for funding, rescinding unused emergency funding, and improving communication between DOT offices and local governments. While FHWA has slightly improved its communications, criteria for emergency transportation funding has been loosened not tightened. Most decision makers glanced at the GAO report, threw it in a drawer, and did not think about it again. 

There are questions as to the government’s role in disaster funding. Should the federal government distribute funding to state DOTs or another entity? Should states match a larger percentage of the total federal funding? What transit agency should receive emergency federal funding-- an MPO, a regional transit board, or the transit operator? Should Davis-Bacon and other federal stipulations that increase the cost of repairs be in effect during emergencies? 

Further, should states receive federal funds even though they have refused to use state funds to fix pre-existing problems? New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut were warned that they would suffer major damage from a hurricane if they did not have an adequate plan for coastal protection. Rather than fix the problem, state leaders decided to punt the problem to the federal government and hope that their good luck would continue. It didn’t. Natural disasters are major tragedies that incur enormous property damage and often tragic loss of life. Due to the emotional nature of the tragedy, there has never been a comprehensive fact-based study that examines how to best solve this problem. Politicians have been very good at lobbying for funding but a complete failure at studying whether the current system is the most-effective way to repair critical infrastructure. 

Despite substantial political pressure to do something, Congress should not pass an emergency-funding bill unless three key problem-areas are resolved. First, all non-emergency funding should be eliminated from the bill. This includes future remediation efforts. Protection of critical infrastructure is important but states need to contribute a substantial part of their own resources to such efforts. Second, future transportation bills need to devote a realistic amount of funding to emergency relief. The current lack of sustainable funds for disaster relief leads to unsustainable emergency appropriations. This process lacks planning and fiscal discipline and substantially increases the federal debt. Third, Congress and the White House should commission an outside group of transportation experts to study the most efficient way to distribute transportation resources in emergencies. Upon receipt of this report, Congress and the White House should amend current laws to make disaster relief less political. Hurricane Sandy has highlighted the problems with emergency transportation relief. We need to fix this problem to avoid both physical and financial disaster.

Atlanta-Savannah is not Suitable for HSR

Posted on November 15, 2012, 4:32pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Many in the transportation community have worked hard to derail ill-conceived High-Speed-Rail (HSR) projects. Transportation policy experts have suggested focusing first on the corridor with the best potential in the U.S.—the Northeast Corridor between Washington DC and Boston. Transportation types have explained that using current congestion figures for road and air are incorrect because the Next Generation Aviation system will safely allow more airplane travel and that widened highways and managed lanes will reduce highway delays. We have pointed out that due to the great recession long-distance holiday and vacation travel has declined. For example in 2005, 58,600,000 people traveled during Thanksgiving weekend. In 2012, only 43,600,000 people are forecasted to travel--a decline of 26%. While travel will rebound, in the near term intercity capacity needs have been sharply reduced. We have explained the many differences between European cities and American cities such as central city density and the quality and quantity of transit systems. However, despite all of the facts that transportation professionals present, some HSR advocates continue to live in the delusion zone. 

After announcing he would not be seeking a post in the Obama Administration, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed stated that he has two transportation priorities for the city of Atlanta. One is the Atlanta BeltLine—the transit line that got panned by American Public Transit Administration President William Millar. The second is a proposed high-speed rail line between Atlanta and Savannah. 

What are the problems with HSR between Atlanta and Savannah?

1) HSR works best in countries with favorable density patterns and excellent transit systems neither of which describe Atlanta or Savannah. But not one of these countries has built or is considering building a HSR line that begins or ends in a metro area with fewer than 500,000 people. While Atlanta has more than 5,000,000 people, Savannah has only 347,000.

2) High-speed rail works best in metro areas with well-developed transit systems. Atlanta’s transit system leaves much to be desired and all of Chatham County has only 28 bus routes.

3) HSR works best in cities with dense populations closest to the HSR station. New York City has 520,000 people living within 2 miles of Grand Central Station and 1,070,000 working with 2 miles of Grand Central Station. Washington D.C. has 140,000 people living within 2 miles of Union Station and 300,000 people working within 2 miles of the station. Atlanta has 70,000 people living within 2 miles of the proposed Gulch transit station and 80,000 working in that same vicinity. Savannah has substantially fewer people both living and working in the 2-mile radius than Atlanta.

4) After HSR lines are built, somebody has to pay the costs needed to operate them. The federal government has offered only capital assistance to build the trains leaving state or local governments to operate them. Since a proposed line between Atlanta and Savannah would lose money on operating costs even with ticket prices at $150 for a one-way trip, taxpayers throughout Georgia would have to pay a significant portion of their taxes to operate the line.

5) HSR trains need tracks to operate. Norfolk-Southern has freight tracks from Atlanta to Macon and Macon to Savannah but many portions of these tracks have top speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. Further, since Norfolk-Southern owns the rail, it must approve passenger trains using them. Since taking a passenger train trip to Savannah on these existing tracks would take longer than driving, new tracks would have to be built. The complete costs of building such a system are estimated to reach $35 billion dollars.

6) Taking HSR rail between most European and Asian cities is more expensive than flying. A round trip non-stop flight from Savannah to Atlanta costs $250. HSR train travel would cost $300.

7) HSR service faces real security threats. If popularity of HSR improves, so will its vulnerability to terrorism. A 200+ mile per hour train is as tempting a target as 500+ mph plane. A Substantial security system will be needed. 

Pro HSR group America 2050 chose the best 100 routes in the nation; Atlanta-Savannah was not on the list. While Atlanta, Charlotte and Birmingham lies in the Piedmont Atlanta megaregion of interconnected economic activity, Savannah does not lie in any megaregion. It is freight not passengers that primarily travels between the two cities. Atlanta residents alone traveling to Tybee Island will not support an HSR line.   

While consultants determined HSR routes including Atlanta-Charlotte, Atlanta-Jacksonville, Atlanta-Birmingham, and Atlanta-Louisville may be realistic in the future, none are realistic today. Substantial land-use and development patterns will need to change. And Atlanta-Savannah is a worse candidate than any of the studied HSR lines. 

State, federal and local governments could find better uses for $35 billion. Returning the funds to taxpayers may be the best option. Atlanta is fortunate to have a mayor interested in solving its transportation problems. But he needs to start with some realistic and less grandiose plans than High Speed Rail and the BeltLine.

Atlanta BeltLine's Public Funding Should be Eliminated

Posted on November 6, 2012, 4:21pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Last Friday, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution printed my editorial on the Atlanta BeltLine. The piece argued that the BeltLine transit component is unworkable. In addition, parks and trails do not represent an Economic Development strategy. Further, the BeltLine has a tremendous Jobs/Housing imbalance. Finally, the lack of quality schools near the BeltLine present a tremendous challenge in luring families to the area. 

I strongly support private developers building the BeltLine with private funds. But I cannot support Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. using federal, state, or local taxpayer funds to build this project. Such subsides distort the market and allow billionaire developers to make a profit at taxpayers’ expense. Traditionally, construction of transit and parks is overseen by the city’s comprehensive planning, permitting and civil works division. The fact that the BeltLine is managed by a special city redevelopment authority, which has spent most of its resources on public relations rather than construction or finance management is a major problem. 

In response, Atlanta BeltLine Inc., which was created by the Atlanta Development Authority, wrote an entry on their website where they “checked the facts of my Op-ed.” While their posting was entertaining, it added little new content. Since I have received several questions about my original Op-Ed, I want to discuss the topic in more detail. First, I will propose several arguments that I did not address in the AJC Op-ed due to space constraints. Second, I will specifically address why the BeltLine, Inc’s “facts” are incorrect and misleading. 

BeltLine, Inc.’s management of the project has created several new problems for the city of Atlanta. First, the BeltLine ties up 75% of the city’s capital bonding power for the next 20-30 years. This severely limits the city’s ability to address other issues. For example, the pavement on many city streets is in serious need of repaving. According to Atlanta Public Works Commissioner Richard Mendoza, the city of Atlanta should be doing five times the current amount of street paving to keep up with the usual wear and tear but lack of funds presents a major obstacle. Bonding could provide some of these needed funds. The city faces other challenges such as keeping its recreation centers open and in good repair. The city could renovate these centers by issuing bonds. Further, Atlanta could update its police and fire equipment through issuing bonds. Bonds alone will not solve Atlanta’s fiscal challenges; but they could certainly help the city make additional investments. 

The next problem is that the BeltLine proposal completely ignores the real estate market. Large numbers of properties have been rezoned for higher densities. But there is no demand for this density today. And it is unlikely Atlanta residents will ever demand this level of density. Atlanta is the least dense metro area in the world with more than 3,000,000 people. Residents of the city of Atlanta have not shown an interest to live in dense surroundings. And even if the city of Atlanta wanted to increase its density, most suburbs do not. As Atlanta is part of a region, it needs to consider not just itself but all of the municipalities around it. 

Another problem is that the BeltLine favors one geographic region of the city over another. The BeltLine may help residents of the northeastern segment at the expense of all other regions. The BeltLine received federal grants because it promised to redevelop low-income minority neighborhoods in southeast and southwest Atlanta. So far, the only change in these areas has been real estate speculation that has forced many of the low-income minority residents out of their homes. But the BeltLine has spent more than half of the total funding on the 20% of land in the northeast quadrant. 

In order to detail the many, many problems with Atlanta BeltLine, Inc.’s logic, I am going to borrow a segment from Bill Maher’s TV show. On his show Maher argues that some politicians are living in a bubble or a world divorced from reality. In Atlanta, BeltLine proponents live in an alternative world where building parks and bicycle paths can solve all of the city’s problems.

Fact 1: Building Trails and Park Space is not a viable economic development strategy.

BeltLine fact from inside the bubble: There has been more than $1 billion in private redevelopment within the BeltLine TAD since 2005. In the Atlanta BeltLine planning area (1/2 mile on either side of the rail corridor) there are more than 90 new developments either completed or in progress, representing more than 12,000 new residential units and 1,500,000 new non-residential square feet. Within a 1/2 mile of the Eastside Trail there has been $775 M in new private redevelopment complete or underway since 2005. In the immediate area around Historic Fourth Ward Park alone there are more than 1,300 new residential units completed or underway. 

Much of the development in this geographic area would have occurred without Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Economic development experts estimate that 10% of the development at most is due to Atlanta BeltLine Inc. Further, most of the new positions are service jobs in restaurants, banks and retail, and most of these new employees will not be able to afford to live in the high-priced residences on the BeltLine. The city needs more professional jobs. In addition, most of the development has occurred in just 1/5 of the BeltLine. Not coincidentally this was the same area that was attracting development before the formation of Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Using city of Atlanta data and economic development experts 10% figure, the BeltLine has generated $100,000,000 of economic activity over 6 years. There is no major city in the country that would brag about this kind of result.

Fact 2: Atlanta has many jobs, but few are near the Beltline.

BeltLine fact from inside the bubble: More than 175,000 jobs within a 1/2 mile of the Atlanta BeltLine corridor and streetcar lines included on the Transportation Investment Act project list. (ARC analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data)

Almost all of these commercial jobs are located at a few locations. And since residential activity is dispersed throughout the BeltLine very few people actually live near a job. Second, BeltLine, Inc. is counting two auxiliary future rail routes that were not part of the original BeltLine concept. One of these routes is a future east-west rail line passing through the heart of Midtown. By expanding the physical presence of the BeltLine, BeltLine, Inc can expand its job base claim. But residents and employees near North Ave and Peachtree St are not considered a part of the BeltLine. Third, in a metro area with 5,500,000 residents, the fact that BeltLine proponents count every conceivable area that is in any way connected to the BeltLine to reach 175,000 jobs shows the lack of jobs in this area.

Fact 3: “Without quality schools and jobs nearby, you’ll have a few Beltline areas that are attractive to childless 20-somethings and empty nesters.”

BeltLine fact from inside the bubble: Again – the market and demographic trends say differently. There has been more than $1 billion in new private redevelopment in the BeltLine TAD since 2005, and $775 million of private sector redevelopment either completed or underway within a half mile of the trail that has taken place since 2005. According to the ARC, 20-somethings (millennials) and empty nesters are the fastest growing segments of our population and prefer to live in walkable, transit-rich communities, like those developing around the Atlanta BeltLine. The schools near the Atlanta BeltLine include Inman Middle School, Grady High School, Morningside Elementary, John Hope Elementary, Maynard Jackson High School, Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School, Mary Lin Elementary, Booker T. Washington High School, and the Schools at Carver. More than 20 schools are located on or near the Atlanta BeltLine. Some of them are among the best performing in the city.

I think the above argument makes my point. Millennials and empty nesters are a growing parts of our population but their needs will change over time. Today’s millennials will become 30-somethings, have kids, and need what all parents need: affordable quality schools. Most empty nesters today are choosing to age in place, not move to the BeltLine. The BeltLine’s problem is its lack of appeal for 30-65 year-olds with kids who need good schools. And these people are not moving to the BeltLine area. Yes, some of the schools near the BeltLine are strong. But many more are among the weakest in the state. In every testing category Atlanta schools trail their counterparts in Fulton County. This is despite the fact that both have near equal percentages of wealth and poverty and similar percentages of whites and minorities. The Atlanta school district’s graduation rate of 52% among the 11 major Urban school districts is the worst in the country. While Atlanta is again trying to improve its schools, the poor graduation rate and test scores are a real problem.

Fact 4: “…effective transit systems transport people from where they live to where they work, play and shop. The Beltline connects residential areas with other residential areas.”

BeltLine fact from inside the bubble: The Atlanta BeltLine is spurring the creation of new, mixed-use districts, including residential and commercial development. It will also connect with the MARTA rail system and the Atlanta Streetcar network, getting people to and from the largest employment centers in the region. On the Atlanta BeltLine alone, it will connect job centers along 45 neighborhoods such as Piedmont Hospital and the Peachtree corridor.

The BeltLine transit component has been deep-sixed, hopefully forever. However, if it raises its ugly head again, it is unlikely there will be any money to build it. As a result, in the near future the BeltLine transit component will not connect anybody with anything. The 1-mile Atlanta Streetcar network along Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd may connect 10 people’s residences and workplaces. A report completed by five transportation professionals including American Public Transit Association President William Millar stated:

The paucity of ridership estimates for different transit options in the BeltLine corridor (especially given how far the BeltLine concept has come in the City’s policy agenda) is surprising. In some cases, individual projects have had ridership forecasts prepared, but it does not appear that credible ridership determinations have been made that consider the network effect of other transit projects that are being seriously considered.

It seems likely that solely from a transit ridership perspective, portions of this loop will not generate sufficient transit ridership to justify investment in high capacity transit infrastructure.

The currently proposed alignment of the BeltLine presents other significant technical issues associated with potential transit use in the BeltLine corridor such as: right-of-way width, freight use of rail lines, elevation differences, etc.

As was noted to the Panel by several speakers, the amount of revenue generated from the TAD is expected to cover only about half of what will be needed (and depending on the design and technology involved, this could be an underestimate). It is highly likely that additional sources of funding will be necessary to cover the costs associated with capital investment. 

And so on and so on …The entire document is available here. The BeltLine white paper is particularly convincing because it was written by professional Engineers and Planners with years of experience. Counter this with the BeltLine’s public relations staff who have little experience in transportation but are very skilled in creating persuasive multimedia presentations absent actual facts.

Fact five: The BeltLine project has already cost taxpayers more than $260 million. In return, they’ve gotten wasteful expenses, a lack of accountability and an ill-conceived transit plan.”

BeltLine fact from inside the bubble: The return on investment for the Atlanta BeltLine is more than $1 billion in private redevelopment in the Tax Allocation District alone. Additionally the project has saved the city millions of dollars on critical infrastructure projects. For example, the storm water lake at Historic Fourth Ward Park, originally projected to cost $40 million as a traditional tunnel-like facility, cost only $24 million as part of an Atlanta BeltLine greenspace.

The BeltLine project has cost taxpayers $260 million and probably much more. We do not know the real costs because the BeltLine will not release the costs. Under Georgia law since BeltLine, Inc. is an economic development entity it is not required to disclose how it spends its money. Since much of this money comes from taxpayers, the BeltLine should post all of these costs in a place easily accessible to all taxpayers. As mentioned earlier, BeltLine, Inc. directly generated only $100 million of that $1 billion amount. According to figures posted on its website, the BeltLine has spent at least $260 million and likely a lot more. That is a negative return on investment of at least $160 million. And the $16 million the BeltLine saved with that stormwater lake does not make up for the $40 million that they overpaid for just one park—the 4^th Ward Park. 

The BeltLine concept is based more on unrealistic dreams than actual real estate and transit needs. The BeltLine, Inc.'s website, under thier response to my Op-ed, features a beautiful picture from a BeltLine event. Does the picture have anything to do with whether the BeltLine is a good use of taxpayer resources? Of course not. It is similar to a futuristic science fiction movie where society has become an uneducated mass lacking in critical thinking skills. When someone in the futuristic society starts asking questions, he is shown a beautiful picture designed to get him to think about something else. BeltLine, Inc. is using a very similar approach. Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. realizes that the facts fail to convince taxpayers that this project will go forward. Instead it is trying to distract residents with beautiful but meaningless pictures. But, taxpayers need not be sucked into this fantasyland. Taxpayers need to simply look at the facts.

E-Z Pass System on InterCounty Connector is a Curious Target for Smart Growth Group

Posted on October 26, 2012, 10:59am | Baruch Feigenbaum

My friends at Greater Greater Washington (GGW) write about Urbanism and Smart Growth. I do not often agree with them but I believe they bring a valuable viewpoint to the table. But occasionally they write an article that is so lacking in facts and logic that I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Such is the case with the article MD Toll Agency Pushes More Driving to Fill Little Used Road. According to the article:

… the Maryland Transportation Authority, which oversees toll roads, has embarked on a campaign encouraging people to drive more. 

I am going to look past the sin of encouraging people to use their private property in the way they see fit and move onto the actual evidence of the crime. GGW sites as evidence the fact that the agency had a booth at the Bethesda Farmer’s Market. The agency was there to encourage the use of the electronic E-ZPass system. The E-ZPass system is installed on many area roads in the metro area. The E-Z pass system allows customers who set up an account with any of the E-ZPass states to pay their tolls electronically 

There are many advantages to electronic tolling. Electronic tolling saves taxpayers money because tollbooths and toll collectors are not required. Electronic tolling is safer because motorists do not have to come to a complete stop, reducing the speed differential between vehicles. And electronic tolling saves time because motorists do not have to fumble for money when stopping at the tollbooth. 

E-Z pass can be used on multiple roads. While some Maryland travelers will use it on the InterCounty Connector (ICC) others will use it on the I-495 Express Lanes or for the I-95 or I-895 Baltimore tunnels. Most Bethesda residents will probably use it for non-ICC purposes since the ICC runs roughly 15 miles north of Bethesda. If you are traveling to or from Bethesda, the ICC would almost never be a logical route. 

The article next argues that the highway is expensive: 70 cents to travel one exit and $4 to travel the entire length of the road. Actually, this rate is only in rush hour. Outside of rush hour the price ranges from $1.60 to $3.20. But even during rush hour and even if I-495 is not congested, the high-quality road is still cheaper. How? If a customer travels from Laurel to Gaithersburg, chooses I-95 south to the ICC to I-270 north, he has chosen a 23-mile-route. If the customer chooses I-95 south to I-495 west to I-270 north, he has chosen a 31-mile route. That 8-mile difference equates to $4.44 in gas, and wear and tear on the car. That means the ICC more than pays for itself if traffic on both it and I-495 are at free-flow speeds. But of course I-495 is seldom at free-flow speeds. Rush hour conditions can last for eight hours a day and traffic frequently drops far below the 55 mile per hour speed limit on weekends, middays and evenings as well. This makes the ICC an even better deal. 

While living close to enough to walk or bike to work may be certain New Urbanists’ dream scenario, in the real world people often cannot live next to their jobs for various reasons. Occupying either an apartment or a house in Bethesda requires a large income. Many workers do not make such an income. In two-person income households, one person may live far from work so the other can live nearby. In other situations the households may choose a residence in between. Some people live in a certain community for the schools offered. There are many Bethesda residents who work in Largo but choose to live in Bethesda because of the quality of the schools. 

As this is the case and people choose to drive, New Urbanists and Environmentalists should support toll roads. Why? Because on toll-roads motorists pay close to 100% of the costs. As the gas tax no longer covers the entire cost of highway travel, motorists who travel on free roads are not paying the full costs. This helps in two important ways. First, the higher cost will discourage motorists who do not really want to make the trip. Underpriced highways leads to induced demand where travelers consume more highways than is optimal because the service is cheap. Second, as the government has more funds, it can spend more on other types of transportation including transit. Now, transit is often underpriced, which leads to induced demand. But that’s an argument for another day. 

Let’s now visit the claim that the ICC is underused. Since the road has opened in stages and the final section between I-95 and US 1 is still under construction, it is challenging to draw conclusions. However, on the section between I-270 and Georgia Ave, traffic averaged approximately 35,000 vehicles per day last month. The traffic counts on the eastern segment of 26,000 will almost certainly increase when the link to US 1 is opened. Since the highway was designed for traffic counts in 2030, it is a not a disaster if there is some extra capacity today. And there is actually little excess capacity. A six-lane highway such as the ICC is designed for between 40,000 and 60,000 vehicles per day. At 35,000 vehicles in 2012, I feel very confident the highway, which solves a growing area, will easily reach 40,000 by 2030. The bigger problem is that it may exceed 60,000 vehicles by that year. 

How about the claim that the state should work to decrease traffic counts on I-270, US 29 and I-95? First, the goal of the ICC was to relieve I-495 and other east-west roads. I-270, US 29 and I-95 run north-south. But reducing traffic on north-south roads is not a bad idea. I wrote an earlier blog posting on the need for an alternative north-south highway in DC in western Montgomery County. I am doubtful that Greater Greater Washington likes that idea. Promoting teleworking, and increasing cost-effective transit service including BRT is a great goal. But the reality is many residents will continue to be single-occupant drivers. And rather than waxing poetic about the 1920’s when people lived in denser communities we should realize that we have to live in today’s world. 

I do agree with the author on one issue—the speed limit on the ICC is low. However, Maryland is already addressing this issue. The transportation authority has completed an initial evaluation of safety data and will complete a more detailed analysis before deciding whether to increase the speed limit. And the decision will come in the next three months. The likely top speed will be 60 miles per hour.   

Why does GGW oppose toll roads? Toll roads recoup the full costs for travel, decrease demand over non-tolled roads, and in some cases generate money for transit. I suspect the decision-making is guided less by actual logic and more by the goal of preventing any new roads. This approach is mystifying because in the end it will actually hurt GGW.

Maglev is not Realistic for U.S.

Posted on October 19, 2012, 1:51pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

A recently proposed U.S. freight Maglev system is more intriguing than previous systems but it is still completely unrealistic for the U.S. On October 15^th the Transportation Research Forum reviewed the book “The Fight for Maglev: Making America the World Leader in 21^st Century Transport” by James Jordan, James Powell and Gordon Danby. The 90-minute forum featured author Jordan, formerly energy research director for the U.S. Navy, discussing the book and reviewer Joseph Warren of the Arlington Transit Advisory Committee analyzing many of the book’s claims.

Mr. Jordan presented a new take on Maglev rail. According to Jordan, a private company could construct a 300 mph Maglev system with no government capital subsidies elevated above interstate highway medians. It would require only a $600 million government funded test facility. Jordan explained this minimum investment is all that is needed since Maglev is ten times cheaper than present day high-speed rail. He also claimed that using Maglev would cost only $0.05 cents per passenger mile for shipped goods compared to the current average truck costs of $0.10 cents per mile. Jordan achieves much of the savings for 2^nd generation Maglev by using electric power to keep the system cold instead of creating an electric charge. 

Jordan’s proposal improves upon past Maglev plans. Previously, rail proponents have focused exclusively on the passenger market. Mr. Jordan rightly suggests there will never be sufficient passengers in most U.S. markets for high-speed ground transport to be a success. Currently, freight companies play a major role in most railroad activities. Creating a system that transports both freight and passengers makes good business sense. Mr. Powell also correctly contrasts the 2^nd generation of Maglev technology, which co-authors Powell and Danby developed, to existing German and Japanese trains. This 2^nd generation technology is cheaper, although still very expensive when compared to almost every other form of transportation. 

However, as in most high-speed ground transportation proposals either high-speed-rail or Maglev there are many major holes. First, if a private company can built this multi billion-dollar investment by itself, why is it waiting on the federal government to build a $600 million federal research center? Relative to the risk of a multi-billion dollar bet, $600 million is chump-change. Jordan counters that the government is preventing investment by providing conventional high-speed rail grants and loans. But with high-speed rail mostly stuck in neutral, there are almost certainly other factors at play. Perhaps it is the unrealistic projected ridership that Mr. Jordan predicts. As pointed out by reviewer Warren, Jordan predicts Maglev will capture 1/2 of passenger highway trips, 3/4 of the truck freight trips and 2/3 of the passenger aviation trips. This is simply not believable. Studies of HSR have shown that two-hundred-mile-per-hour trains will capture 10 percent of the auto travel market at most. Three-hundred-mile-per-hour Maglev trains will not divert substantially more travel. Automobile users value flexibility, not price nor speed. Maglev rail will not offer flexibility. Only two HSR routes have captured 2/3 of the aviation market and these corridors are unique. These two corridors located in France and Japan, are very dense routes travel through densely populated areas that were built before the ascendancy of the automobile. Further, since freight trucks hauled by Maglev will need to be driven from the Maglev terminal to thier final destination, short trips from the rail station to the retail or industrial destination will still be made by road. In fact Maglev will likely induce further short trips. 

There are other cost issues. Second generation Maglev vehicles has never before been constructed. Since the construction costs of new modes of transport almost always exceed thier estimates, these estimates should be used with caution. While China's Maglev system differs, the system suggests the uncertainty of cost estimates. And the Chinese systems true costs were minimized by creative government accounting. Maglev operating costs of $0.40 to $1.60 per mile provide a very large spread. More precise numbers based on different circumstances are needed. Further, instead of using a standard depreciation cost of $0.08 per mile, the author uses $0.30, which provides very different numbers. The authors also claim enormous cost savings as a result of using prefabricated materials; these cost savings seem very unlikely. 

Further, most high-speed-rail plans will build trains only along selected routes such as Chicago to St. Louis or Houston to Dallas. In order for this goods movement system to work, Maglev trains would need to be built along almost all interstate routes. The costs of Maglev in New York State are out of this world. In Wyoming they would be out of this galaxy.

Also problematic is the book’s obsession with environmental doom. While Maglev proponents may want the Sierra Club’s support, quality research should not be compromised to form a coalition. The book relies on peak oil theories from more than ten years ago. Hydraulic fracturing and the discovery of natural gas have pushed peak-oil back significantly. The Green revolution allows farms to generate significantly more food on many fewer acres. This eliminates the preserving farmland claim. The book seems to see two future possibilities: electric cars or Maglev. Hybrids, increased carpooling/bus ridership, and technological advances that reduce petroleum use are not considered. 

The author proposes some draconian policy changes. Since Maglev infrastructure would be built on or adjacent to Interstate highway medians, building new lanes on these highways would be very challenging. This includes not merely general-purpose lanes but managed lanes, truck lanes and bus lanes. This would not work in major cities where most highways do not have any open land to build tracks. The study does not fully consider any other options such as truck lanes, next-generation aviation’s ability to decrease air congestion or partially automated cars’ ability to decrease road congestion. Comparing costs with High-Speed Rail but not aviation or buses creates a strawman. An extensive conventional high-speed rail system is as equally unlikely as Maglev to be built in the U.S. It is akin to a city comparing its economic situation to Detroit and suggesting its economic losses are a good thing because they are smaller than Detroit’s.

Perhaps some major changes could make a better case for Maglev. But based on the numbers, the U.S. will not be an appropriate market for a comprehensive Maglev system for at least the next 50 years if ever.

Vanpools and Carpools can Complement Transit

Posted on September 25, 2012, 4:39pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Transportation officials often overlook one of the easiest ways to decrease congestion—encourage carpooling. According to 2011 data from the U.S. Census, fewer than 5.0% of commuters choose any of the typical alternatives to single-person commuting. About 5.0% choose transit; 2.8% decide to walk; and less than 0.6% actually bike. But almost 10% of commuters choose carpooling despite the reality that carpooling receives little marketing and virtually no funding from any level of government. While single occupant driving continues to dominant as the choice of 76.4% of the population, carpooling comes in second at 9.7%. 

Carpooling or Ridesharing is very cost-effective. San Francisco provides a typical account. While the region spends $8.34 per each transit rider, it spends only $0.63 for each person in a carpool or vanpool. While Oregon spent almost a $1 billion on a new light-rail line and many millions on bicycling and pedestrian facilities, it spent only $23 million for ridesharing on the new Columbia River Crossing. Yet while the crossing will draw 13,175 carpoolers it will only draw 6,425 on bus and rail combined, 700 bicyclists, and 80 pedestrians. That equates to almost $140,000 for each daily transit user, bicyclist and walker. And removing cost-effective buses would make this per user subsidy even higher. Buses and carpools will carry the vast majority of commuters in this corridor in the managed lanes despite receiving 8 times fewer subsidies than rail or bicycling. 

Many transportation types believe the U.S. has missed an opportunity to promote carpooling. Cindy Burbank of Parsons Brinckerhoff studies carpooling; she presented the Transit Cooperative Research Program’s Synthesis 98 Ridesharing as a Complement to Transit at the recent American Metropolitan Planning Association (AMPO) conference. The report details how transit agencies could work together instead of competing with each other by using ridesharing to cost-effectively compliment their services. At present time there are very few of these type partnerships. 

The report available here details how metro areas can develop such programs. The four methods include Solving the “Last Mile”, “Maximizing Agency Revenue”, Creating Capacity through Slugging and Leading through Legislation. I have mixed feelings on some of the findings. While I agree that carpooling is underutilized, I do not think it should be used as a cash cow to support other transit modes. 

Pace, the suburban bus operator in the Chicago Metro area provides a good example of Covering the “Last Mile.” Pace parks its vans at the work ends of the train trip (near job centers) so commuters can complete their journey to their jobs. The flat rate of $58 per month provides a cost-effective quality transit trip. Drivers ride for free and back-up drivers receive a $10 discount. Customers also receive services such as the guaranteed ride home. 

I am less enthralled about how some metro areas Maximize Revenue from vanpool or carpool service. Transit service should be as self-supporting as possible. Maximizing revenue implies the agency is making money from vanpooling and using it to subsidize rail transit. Transferring money from a successful program to a money losing program is a curious strategy. However, programs such as The Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority (DART) Vanpool serve a growing market by providing quality transit service in areas where full transit service is not realistic. Still the agency should consider directly charging customers instead of relying on federal funding. 

In Casual Carpooling passengers park at a park and ride station, or commute via local bus to the park and ride station. Drivers pick up these passengers who share a ride to their destination. This allows the vehicle to use the managed lanes that offer a substantial travel time-savings. The Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission, located in Northern Virginia encourages residents to use this service.

Finally, I am less than thrilled that the state of Washington provides substantial  Funding Support for Transit. While using gas tax funds or general revenue funds for transit can be problematic, I am pleased that Washington State is supporting relatively low cost carpooling and vanpooling compared to high-cost commuter rail transit. Washington State should work towards providing a Vanpool service that is completely self-supportive without government subsidies.  

Exactly why does ridesharing work and why are partnerships between ridesharing and transit a good idea? The top two reasons why ridesharing and transit work well together are the abilities to bridge service gaps and address market demand. Many suburban areas are not dense enough for regular transit service. Carpool/vanpool matching, marketing to appropriate businesses and providing a guaranteed ride home are the top three components of both transit and ridesharing programs. Of metro areas with ridesharing and transit service, fewer than half of the transit agencies in those metro areas market ridesharing. Yet Vanpool programs are a key component of transit service in most of these markets. And transit agencies should consider how they budget their money. While ridesharing is very popular many transit agencies spend less than one percent of their operating funds on ridesharing. 

Simply developing a program is not enough. Strong interagency coordination significantly improves ridesharing programs. Much better results are achieved when regional planning associations and transit agencies work together. While almost half of customers surveyed are interested in dynamic ridesharing that uses technology such as cell phone apps, there are no current programs. While Washington DOT and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in three San Francisco Bay counties have pilot programs, data is not yet available. 

As technology progresses there will be a greater reliance on electronic technology for ridesharing. Cell phone apps and computer matching will significantly reduce the government costs. Allowing competition such as jitneys would help further. Unfortunately, some transit companies want to engage in monopolistic practices that protect themselves at the expense of providing quality transit service. Current federal rules support these practices. Changing those rules will only increase the quality and quantity of transit service.

HSR Grants Maintenance Problems Provide Further Proof that Administration Views Transportation as Political Handout

Posted on September 24, 2012, 10:21am | Baruch Feigenbaum

Last week’s audit of the Federal Railroad Administration's Grants Management Process illustrates that the President views transportation as a political spoils system. In reality, this administration has never considered transportation a priority. First, the President picked Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation. LaHood told the New York Times that he would be happier as Secretary of Agriculture. Then the administration suggested changing the Federal Transit Administration’s method of awarding grants by making the process subjective. The administration made this change because it claims that there is no good way to measure sustainability. Of course members of the President’s urban advisory board have written papers that prove otherwise. In addition, over the summer the President was missing in action as Congress negotiated a new surface transportation bill. Transportation analysts urged the White House to detail its transportation vision for the bill. Analysts are still waiting.

And then last week the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an audit report of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) titled Completing a Grants Management Framework can Enhance FRA's Administration of the HSIPR Program that detailed the need for a Grants Management Framework for the administration’s high-speed-rail program. This strongly worded report shows the administration has dropped the ball on transportation yet again. 

According to the report, FRA obligated $9.6 billion in grants while it concurrently developed its grant management policies and procedures. It is rather challenging to monitor a program that lacks rules and guidelines. FRA gave out funding as if money was going out of style; but FRA had no accurate process to determine how the money was being spent. The OIG warned agencies about this exact problem in 2009 here. While FRA’s existing manual provided some guidance, it was mostly inadequate. While the administration formed workgroups to determine railroad guidance, it neither provided the groups with timelines to finish the work nor provided grantee feedback on how to improve the grants. 

Specifically, FRA has hired only 39 of the 51 staff the agency claims it needs. Over the past three years, the agency claims it has been unable to hire candidates with appropriate skills despite a national jobless rate that exceeded 8 percent. Worse, its current staff is improperly trained. FRA has not developed a training curriculum on the policies, procedures and guidance for high-speed-rail grants administration largely because the agency just recently released its Grants Management Guidance. Most troubling, the agency does not require any fraud awareness training. Fraud awareness training is designed to allow the FRA to detect everything from applicants asking for inflated grant amounts to contractors getting paid for work they did not do. 

The agency also lacks mechanisms for program and grantee assessment. While the agency has outlined rail goals in several documents the goals are inconsistent among documents. For many goals the inconsistencies cannot be reconciled making it challenging for grant makers, decision makers and Congressional members to know what the program is trying to achieve. The goals performance measures are so vague, it is impossible to determine program progress. For example, one goal is to improve existing intercity passenger corridors through reliability, speed and frequency. However, the goal does not include any measures that indicate progress such as trip time improvements, ridership gains or additional train service. FRA mechanisms for determining grantee performance are also severely lacking. The agency has no data on grantee performance and compliance. There is no way to determine if grantees meet submission deadlines for required grant documentation and progress reports. FRA’s current plan for monitoring grantee performance and compliance did not mention timelines or the resources needed to conduct such reports. Subsequently, the agency did not conduct performance and compliance reviews from 2009 to 2012 as the law required. 

As a result the inspector general recommended five actions. Theses actions include (1) establishing milestones for workgroups to complete guidance on grant management policies and procedures, (2) establishing a process for HSIPR grantees to provide feedback, (3) developing a comprehensive grants management training curriculum that includes a fraud training component, (4) establishing actual program goals, and (5) developing a standardized mechanism for collecting and tracking performance and compliance metrics.

As a result of the review, the agency agreed it needed to improve recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5. Unbelievably, FRA claimed that the agency has actual goals that it provides to the Office of the Secretary but not to the public or the grantees; the FRA further requested this recommendation be closed. Thankfully, the Inspector General is requiring the FRA to provide copies of these mysterious goals to grantees and taxpayers. 

The Inspector General report is deservedly one of the harshest reports produced for a transportation program. The entire document is available here. 

The FRA’s grant management process is a disaster even by this administration’s standards. Clearly the administration wanted to spend stimulus money on rail. Dishing out funding for the 315 grants was apparently more important than setting up a management structure. The agency could not have determined how effectively the grants were used since its staff was not trained and the agency had no actual metrics to determine if its goals were met. But what is appalling is that since the agency had no actual goals, even if the employees were trained and the agency established actual metrics the employees still would have no goals to evaluate! Applicants have no idea what information they are supposed to provide to Washington since Washington will not tell them the program’s actual goals. FRA does not capture grantee performance but even if the agency did how would it compare the grants? The FRA cannot determine if the grantees are accomplishing nonexistent goals. Worst of all the agency told OIG that the Office of Secretary knows the goals of the program so it is okay for the administration  not to release information to grantees, Congressman or taxpayers. Here’s a newsflash for Secretary LaHood: your budget is paid by taxpayers and Congress appropriates the funds. In order to receive funding you need to explain that vision to someone outside the agency. The current communication process resembles Secretary LaHood sending psychic messages through the toaster. This mix of arrogance, feigned ignorance, and insulation is appalling. 

No matter how little the administration actually knows about transportation, its leaders are not stupid. While most citizens want actual transportation solutions, the Obama administration views transportation as a political handout. If the administration had an actual goal, actual metrics, or actual public information, it would have to distribute the grants based on needs. But this administration does not care about needs, it cares about a political slush fund that gives grants to friends or Democratic districts in swing states. This is the same problem that afflicts the TIGER Grants. In that program the administration will not detail how it awards grants because the administration is worried that applicants might game the system. Imagine the problems if an applicant with a federal aid highway bridge, that needs urgent repair receives funding instead of a multimodal station that serves two historic train routes in Nowhereville, OH. This administration has never had a transportation vision. The President only talks about transportation in campaign ads and then he greatly oversimplifies the issue. When this administration thinks transportation, it thinks of political outcomes not actual needs. There is no other explanation for how such a group of intelligent people could ruin a vital need. This fact should nauseate everybody in the transportation world.

Where BRT with Queue Jumpers Works: DeKalb County, GA

Posted on September 8, 2012, 6:00am | Baruch Feigenbaum

DeKalb County, Georgia features an excellent example of a Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT) line with traffic signal priority and queue jump lanes. The partnership of DeKalb County, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has effectively implemented BRT on the major arterial of Memorial Drive. 

As detailed yesterday, (BRT) is a transit line that can bypass congestion. BRT service operates in a dedicated lane or receives signal priority via queue jumpers. With the exceptions of New York City, the District of Columbia, downtown Chicago, and central San Francisco, the frequency of bus service is not high enough to dedicate an entire lane to buses. As a result dedicating an existing lane to buses is an inefficient use of the roadway. Further, it is sure to enrage automobile drivers. Since these corridors have fewer than 60 buses an hour or less than one bus a minute, the best solution for most places is offering signal priority via queue jump lanes

In priority signaling, a bus has special equipment that alerts a traffic signal that it is approaching the intersection. In some situations, the traffic signal will turn green in a matter of seconds so the bus does not have to stop for a red light. In other situations the bus gets a priority green; a priority green gives the bus a 5-20 second head start over other vehicles. BRT systems with priority signaling typically have either a dedicated lane at intersections or share traffic with the right-lane. This allows the bus to jump ahead of traffic when the light turns green. 

DeKalb County deputy director of Engineering Peggy Allen detailed the Memorial Drive service in the Partnering for Improved Transit Service session at last month’s Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting and Exhibit.  DeKalb County in the Atlanta region first implemented traffic signal priority in 1999 along busy Candler Rd. Traffic signal priority gives preference to local buses at 17 major intersections. Then, DeKalb County worked with MARTA, GDOT and FTA to implement the Memorial Drive Bus-Rapid-Transit service with signal priority at 27 intersections. 

The Memorial Drive project is being evaluated against three main goals: improving air quality, providing cost-effective transit service and reducing traffic congestion. The DeKalb County project features signal prioritization, queue jumper lanes at intersections, electronic information displaying bus arrival times and multi-door boarding. There are two BRT services that operate along much of the 5-mile corridor during rushhour. Each operates every 10 minutes. 

The BRT vehicles have special radio/GPS emitters. The emitter sends speed, heading and position information that is updated each second. The data sent by the emitter is received by the radio/GPS receiver, which is located near the signalized intersection. If the vehicle is approaching while the signal is green, the detector prompts a sequence within the controller that provides for additional green time to get the vehicle through the intersection. This allows all vehicles in parallel lanes to clear the intersection as well.

If the BRT vehicle is approaching the intersection on a red signal, the traffic signal phases for the side streets revert to minimum cycle times to allow a green signal for the approaching vehicle as soon as feasibly possible in the timing sequence. One unique aspect of the system is that it maintains signal coordination along the corridor.

Several of the intersections make use of queue jumpers. The concept allows the bus, which is in a restricted travel lane, to receive a green indication at the traffic signal while other vehicles remain at a stop condition at the same intersection, thus giving the bus priority in the queue. 

In order to differentiate between the signal indications for the normal traffic signal phases and the queue jumper signal phase, the two-lens light rail transit signal indication was used as the signal indication in the BRT lane. Both the go and the stop indications are white, which prevents any possible confusion for motorist in the travel lanes parallel to the queue jumper lane. Additionally, a “Bus Signal” sign was displayed at the intersection adjacent to the light rail transit signal indication to further differentiate them from the usual signal indications. 

Having the appropriate traffic signal timing plan in place is critical to ensuring the proper operation of the system. Prior to implementing the transit signal priority system the morning rush hour timing plan had a cycle length of 150 seconds and used eight phases of the controller. After implementing the system the cycle length for the corridor was increased to 160 seconds. Additionally, the queue jumper installation necessitated the addition and utilization of a ninth phase, separate from all of the other phases in the cycle. 

Preliminary data show that this BRT line has decreased congestion by more effectively using the roadway and by providing a more reliable, more used bus route. At the same price as a local bus, the Memorial Drive BRT lines offer better, more reliable service at a low price. Finally, improved travel speeds for both cars and buses has reduced pollution. While ridership is very strong, the service could be improved further if queue jump lanes were built at the remaining intersections. The Memorial Drive corridor is similar to other congested arterial corridors around the nation. If the service works in DeKalb County it can work most everywhere else.

Local Bus Service is not Bus-Rapid-Transit

Posted on September 7, 2012, 2:48pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

At last month’s 5^th national Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) conference one of the key topics focused on which types of bus services qualify as BRT. While most transit practitioners think that BRT service must either offer a dedicated lane or some form of signal priority, some metro areas are branding any type of bus service BRT. This could confuse riders and limit the popularity of BRT. 

Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT) is a popular transit technology used extensively throughout the world. Similar to light-rail BRT can operate in either a dedicated lane or in mixed traffic. However, light rail typically relies on an overhead wire for power. As a result, LRT is limited to certain corridors and certain lanes in a corridor. As BRT receives its power from an electric, natural gas, diesel, or combustion engine it can travel on any street. 

However, BRT differs from local and express bus as well. BRT vehicles have a system that allows them to bypass traffic congestion. This is typically a dedicated lane or priority signaling. In a dedicated lane system one lane of traffic in each direction is prioritized for buses. Sometimes these lanes are in the middle of the road separated from other traffic. Other times the lane is the right or left lane of the existing roadway. Sometimes BRT buses share left or right turn lanes with cars. In priority signaling a bus has special equipment that alerts a traffic signal that it is approaching the intersection. In some situations the traffic signal will turn green in a matter of seconds, so the bus does not have to stop for a red light. In other situations the bus gets a priority green; a priority green gives the bus a 5-20 second head-start over other vehicles. BRT systems with priority signaling typically have either a dedicated lane at intersections or share traffic with the right-lane. This allows the bus to jump ahead of traffic when the light turns green. 

BRT is different from local or express buses. Local buses have numerous stops, often every 1/8 mile or less. These slow routes are designed to provide easy-access to everybody in the neighborhood. Express buses and limited-stop buses typically have fewer stops and a faster commute. Express buses have most of their stops in a small geographic area and travel some distance to an employment center. Limited-stop buses typically have consistent stops every ½ to 1 mile apart. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. Neither of these is BRT because buses do not receive priority compared to other vehicles in a corridor. 

All types of bus service are valuable. Many smaller communities may only need local-bus while the bigger communities may use local bus, express bus, and BRT. However, by calling any bus service BRT, agencies are distorting the concept of BRT. When consumers board a service labeled “BRT” that is really a local bus, their incorrect assumptions that BRT service is inferior to rail transit are reinforced. True BRT service is typically equal to or superior to rail service in speed, reliability and comfort. For most U.S. areas, BRT is the most realistic, rapid transit technology for the 21rt century. Delineating between regular bus and BRT service is essential.

LaHood Calls Silver Line a Model and Then Rips Agency Building the Line

Posted on August 31, 2012, 12:09pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood praised the Silver Line heavy-rail transit project on Monday. Then on Tuesday LaHood castigated the agency building the project, Metro Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). On Monday, according to WTOP, LaHood waxed poetically about the Silver Line: 

"This is the story similar to the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate system," he says. "This is a model. We're gonna take this on the road. We're gonna talk about this project in other places in the country." 

Perhaps LaHood was referring to the agency’s pursuit of a megaproject. Being bold enough to create a mega-project is good only if the project serves a transportation need, is on-time and on-budget. The Silver Line from East Falls Church, VA to Ashburn, VA serves a need. But it is neither on-time nor on-budget. 

The decision to build transit in the corridor makes sense. Transit service is lacking. Whether BRT would have been a better solution than heavy-rail is a very good question. But at least the Silver Line is transit service that quickly moves people from point A to point B.

However, the project has many, many problems. The practices of the Metro Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) governing board, safety and cost overruns have become issues. The MWAA board’s government structure is a mess. In a report released earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office detailed how MWAA’s policies relating to financial disclosures, travel, transparency and procurement are insufficient. The board’s ethics and disclosure laws are very weak and lack procedural safeguards. In a separate article the Washington Examiner uncovered many questionable practices such as: a board member who resigned from the board for health reasons and was given a $180,000 salary with no specific job, a former board member who received nearly $1 million in MWAA contracts after he left the board, and a vendor, who was awarded a $42,000 no-bid contract to import flowers from Ethiopia. How can this board be a model for anything? 

Safety is also an issue. Bridge safety questions were first raised in 2009 when the chief bridge manager questioned whether the steel pilings that carried the tracks over I-66 were safe. The agency ignored his concerns for six months until the Washington Post reported on his concerns. Federal officials became involved and they ordered more tests. But without federal pressure, the MWAA would have continued ignoring the problem. At the time, FTA administrator Peter Rogoff was concerned about management of the project by the Airports Authority which provided “unacceptable” and sloppy” responses. The problem is that MWAA has no motivation for ensuring safety. They are building the line for WMATA. To the MWAA if an accident happens, it is WMATA’s problem. How is an agency that neglects safety considered a model? 

Finally, cost escalation has been the biggest problem. Infrastructure costs, especially for transit, have a habit of creeping upward. The difference in rail projects estimated and actual costs is 44%. The costs of the second phase have a similar cost creep rising from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion. Virginia governor Bob McDonnell was able to reduce costs by getting MWAA to scrap a labor-friendly provision that seemed to violate at least the spirit of Virginia’s right to work laws. Several transit expansions have kept cost creep to less than 20 percent. While any cost creep should be avoided, in the transit world less than 20% is fairly good. When one phase of a project increases by $1 billion how is that project considered a model? 

This does not touch on the strangest issue. Why is an airport board building the line instead of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) that actually operates and maintains heavy-rail in the DC area? Much of the funding comes from Dulles toll-road users. MWAA is the principal entity that has access to these funds. In major projects whoever has the money drives the process. Even if that agency has no experience in the field. 

Clearly LaHood is aware of some of the problems. Having such a dysfunctional board manage anything not to mention a major infrastructure expansion is a recipe for disaster. And Secretary LaHood knows it. On Tuesday, after LaHood praised the Silver Line, he wrote a letter with DC Mayor Gray, Maryland Governor O’Malley, and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell reading in part: 

We are gravely concerned with the lack of accountability, transparency and sound judgment that has come to light regarding the Board’s recent activities. The Inspector General raised concerns related to nepotism and provided example of Board members participating in matters in which they have potential conflicts of interest. The report reveled excessive spending on air travel, meals, and wine. 

The “outraged” officials outlined several improvements that the MWAA board needed to make in the letter.

Clearly, this project is no model. Why would LaHood praise it? Does he want new-rail transit so badly he ignores governance, safety and cost issues? 

This is the latest in a series of ignorant statements emanating from Secretary LaHood’s mouth. LaHood complained about a number of provisions in the transportation bill that was written mostly by fellow Democrat Barbara Boxer. He could have shaped that bill but Congress, tired of a White House MIA on transportation for 3 ½ years finally decided it could not wait any longer. LaHood continues to tout the TIGER Grants Program that even many Democrats admit is more political tool than discretionary program. He continues to defend the administration’s high-speed-rail program that other Democrats admit was terribly executed. Worst of all he could be back for a second term. LaHood announced earlier this year that he was leaving the White House after one-term. However, after receiving no offers for his transportation expertise, he is rethinking his decision. Perhaps Tom Vilsack will find a better job and Mr. LaHood will be appointed to the position that he told the New York Times he really wants: Secretary of Agriculture. The cows may protest but at least the country will have someone competent overseeing transportation.

GAO Praises BRT

Posted on August 16, 2012, 4:23pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Several weeks ago the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a positive study of U.S. based Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT) systems. Thirteen of the 15 projects that provided study data reported increases in ridership over the most recent service year. When BRT replaced another transit service, it decreased travel time between 10-35 percent. While total ridership varied, the M15 BRT line in New York City carried more than 55,000 daily riders. Its ridership was greater than many light-rail lines as well as that of several light-rail systems.

BRT has many other advantages. Capital costs are lower than for rail transit projects. BRT costs account for a very small percentage of New Starts, Small Starts, and Very Small Starts funding. Using a given amount of money substantially more BRT lines than rail lines can be funded. Many of these projects provide rail-like benefits at substantially lower costs. While transportation projects should not be built primarily for economic development reasons, the study indicates that BRT is just as likely to contribute to economic development as rail. 

The GAO study examined projects in dedicated lanes and shared lanes. With the exception of New York City with its large number of buses and small headway between vehicles, it is impractical to dedicate an entire lane to buses. Instead, priority traffic signaling, bus pull-outs and other improvements can allow buses to travel quick, consistent speeds without the expense of adding a lane or the issue of eliminating a lane from car travel. 

Often metro areas must choose between light-rail service and BRT. This GAO report confirms that BRT has many advantages. One of the advantages is that BRT is much cheaper to build and operate. For the cost of constructing 2 or 3 light rail lines, a city could build an entire BRT network. With the exception of places such as New York City, Washington D.C., or Chicago there are few corridors where rail is a better choice than BRT. 

New rail lines provide sexier ribbon cutting opportunities than new bus lines. These  photo opportunities are very beneficial to politicians. Transportation engineers, planners and policy makers need to encourage politicians to focus on solving transportation problems and not photo opportunities and ribbon cutting ceremonies. 

GAO has released several studies critical of rail. When a former skeptic such as GAO offers such a glowing report, it shows the success of BRT. Far more metro areas should invest in this cost-effective and efficient technology.

Atlanta not "Devastated" by Sales Tax Rejection

Posted on August 15, 2012, 9:19pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Before late July’s transportation sales tax vote in Atlanta, some politicians warned Atlanta voters that rejecting the 1 percent Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST) would lead to devastation. Atlanta mayor Kasim Reed told a national group that Atlanta would be left behind. Brookings Senior Fellow Chris Leinberger told attendees at a transportation forum that if Atlanta rejected the BeltLine it would turn into Birmingham, AL. Business leaders warned that rejecting the T-SPLOST would prolong the region’s economic hardship. 

With the tax’s defeat in 9 of the 12 regions in Georgia including Atlanta, many leaders changed their tune. The current narrative is that ambitious overhauls take time. This new messaging is much closer to the truth. Business consultants note that transportation is just one of many factors. While Atlanta traffic is congested, it is actually less congested than comparable metro areas such as Houston, Dallas and Washington D.C. In fact comparing Atlanta to Charlotte or Denver is similar to comparing apples to oranges. The Atlanta metro area has more than 5,000,000 people; the Charlotte and Denver areas each have less than 3,000,000. Education, costs of living and taxes are more important factors.

The truth is that most major transportation plans require multiple tries before they are approved. The interstate highway concept was first sketched on a piece of paper by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Yet, it did not become law until 1956 and only because President Dwight Eisenhower was such as major supporter. The Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transportation Authority (MARTA) plan for a 1% sales tax to fund transit required three votes before it passed in Fulton County, DeKalb County and the city of Atlanta. Many metro areas have passed transportation referendums on the second, third, or fourth try. When these initial referendums failed, area leaders made changes to improve the referendum.  

To their credit most regional leaders have worked hard to find another solution. And there are several other options. Following are three of the major challenges in solving Atlanta’s transportation problem. 

Funding: A sales tax is a problematic funding source. While it raises a large amount of money it has no relationship to transportation. Sales tax revenue varies substantially based on the economy. It is highly regressive and encourages commuters to live far from where they work. While the Atlanta region could choose another project list based on the sales tax, it may not be the best option. Gas taxes, toll-roads, value capture and other user-pay mechanisms make far better choices. These mechanisms have the added benefit of being 100% user supported.

Transit: Transit is a contentious issue in Atlanta. The T-SPLOST project list focuses heavily on three rail based lines—two of which would not move people from point A to point B. Businesses that won the rail sweepstakes—they were near a new rail line--were elated; those that lost were upset. While rail may not be dead, a better choice for the Atlanta region is bus-rapid-transit. In fact for less money than it would cost to build three rail lines, Atlanta could build a comprehensive bus-rapid-transit system. Such a system could provide transit to the entire metro area, not just a select few places. 

Regional Highway Improvements: A new plan should heavily focus on regional highways and congested interchanges. The Atlanta T-SPLOST project list made very few interchange improvements. And of the proposed improvements no more than half of the project cost was actually funded by the proposed one percent sales tax. GDOT has a managed lanes plan to encourage carpooling and transit on Atlanta expressways. Yet not a single mile of these lanes was funded by the one percent sales tax. The original plan focused a lot of resources on local highways and economic development purposes. A new regional plan should focus on regional priorities. 

Solving transportation problems is complicated. And it is unlikely that all of Atlanta’s plans will be solved immediately. However, it is welcome news that Atlanta area leaders have abandoned their sensationalist rhetoric and focused instead on future solutions. Atlanta has had phenomenal growth based on a low cost of living and great economic opportunities. Rejecting a T-SPLOST project list that relied on a questionable funding source and devoted too much funding to local road and unnecessary transit projects will not hurt Atlanta. In the long-term it will make us stronger.

Sales Tax Funding and Useless Rail Projects are Major T-SPLOST Negatives

Posted on July 26, 2012, 4:00pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

Recently I was invited to an Atlanta Forward forum hosted by the Atlanta-Journal Constitution on a proposed 1% transportation sales tax appearing on Georgia residents’ ballots next Tuesday, July 31. Other participants included Chris Leinberger from Brookings and two metro Atlanta politicians, Bucky Johnson and Steve Brown. The complete video is available here. Among the highlights:

I would offer a nuanced view on (the merits of T-SPLOST). I think it depends on where you live and it depends on the specific project. So, if you're close to the Ga. 400, I-285 project, maybe you live in Sandy Springs and you work in downtown Atlanta, you're going to get a lot of benefit because that project is going to be good for you.

But if you’re in some other parts of the region, if you’re in Gwinnett County and you have only a [transit] planning study and you really don’t have much in the way of highway improvements [or] if you’re in Henry County and you really don’t have much in the way of regional improvements … there’s really not a lot to benefit you. 

And I’m also not a fan of some of the transit projects because I don’t think they go from home to work. So I think the answer is, it depends.

Atlanta is the least dense [metro area] in the world with more than 3 million people. We also know that what really drives development is land use and land use patterns. One of the reasons why Atlanta is not dense is because we have chosen a land use pattern that is basically somewhat friendly to suburbs … . 

Now from my perspective, we should be producing the transportation system that people in this region want. But … by and large, people in Atlanta have not voted for denser development.

More specifically, the T-SPLOST has several problems. Its funding mechanism of a sales tax has no relationship to transportation. A sales tax is not a true user fees such as a gas tax dedicated to highway use, vehicle miles traveled fees, or tolls.

Transit options comprise 52% of the sales tax. Atlanta is a post-World War II city. Its low density and car-oriented development pattern make providing good transit challenging. However, transit is vital in all major cities. And Atlanta’s current transit system has many holes. An extensive BRT transit system could be built using only 25-33% of the total. The project list squanders most of the transit money on three light-rail lines. Worse, two of these lines are terrible projects from every angle. William Millar, president of the American Public Transit Association (APTA) at the time noted that due to the difference between current development and build-out potential, transit may not be realistic until at least 2025. When the President of the American Public Transit Association says a transit project should not be built, that is one powerful message. The proposed light-rail line from the Arts Center station to the Cumberland area in Cobb County also has issues. There is no right-of-way to build this system and the powerful neighborhood is likely to resist eminent domain and building of the rail line through a residential area.

There are certainly many good projects on the list. The critical intersections of I-285 and SR 400, I-285 and I-85N, and I-285 and I-20W receive needed funding. The I-285/SR 400 intersection is the best project on the list. The intersection is adjacent to the Perimeter business district, the largest concentration of jobs in the southeast. During the day traffic backs up in every possible direction. Reconstructing this functionally obsolete intersection is important. Anybody who doubts the need to improve this intersection is simply divorced from reality. But these intersections will get rebuilt even if the tax fails. Seventy-five percent of the I-285/SR 400 rebuild and 50% of the I-85N/I-285 rebuild and the I-20W/I285 rebuild comes from other sources. While the T-SPLOST will speed up construction of these interchanges, they will be constructed anyway. 

There are other important quality projects on the list. Enhancing GRTA’s bus service, enhancing local bus service in Clayton and Gwinnett counties, and returning MARTA to a state of good-repair are all important. And while local bus service would ideally be funded by the local counties and MARTA should be far more efficient, these projects have regional benefits. 

While many of the highway projects are good, some are wasteful. There are a large number of surface road improvements in Fayette County, most of which are not needed now and may never be needed.

Voters on July 31st will choose. The choice is between voting “YES” on a problematic list that contains some good projects or voting “NO” and waiting for a better alternative. Tomorrow I will look at options if the sales tax fails.

Atlanta T-SPLOST is Complicated

Posted on July 26, 2012, 1:17pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

In a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution commentary I detailed the complexity of the Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (T-SPLOST) that voters will either accept or reject next Tuesday July 31st. The metro Atlanta T-SPLOST will fund a list of transportation projects in the ten county Atlanta Regional Commission planning area. Residents of each of Georgia’s 159 counties, located in one of 12 different regions, will vote on a local project list. However, regions outside of Atlanta have much more in common with each other due to Atlanta’s greater population, greater tax revenue, and inclusion of rail transit. The other 11 regions have less controversial project lists and fewer transportation needs.

With Georgia ranked 49th in transportation spending, the question should focus not on whether the state needs to increase investment in its transportation network, but what is the best, most efficient and politically realistic way to do so.

Given this framework, there are reasons for voting for and against the Transportation Investment Act. 

Metro Atlanta needs to solve its congestion issues: Residents waste a significant portion of time — and money — stuck in traffic. Transit service is inadequate; frequency and coverage are below cities of similar size. 

Competitors, including Charlotte, Dallas and Houston, have comprehensive transportation strategies, while other Southern states such as North Carolina and Texas have approved local sales taxes for transportation. 

Funding transportation infrastructure with a sales tax is not optimal, primarily because such a tax has no relationship to the usage of the transportation system. 

It is politically easier to increase a single tax, especially a tax where tourists contribute a significant amount, but it is arguable that a mix of taxes and user fees would be a better solution. 

Transit is important for metro Atlanta’s future and deserves some regional and state funding. 

But increasing transit service, a laudable goal, should not come at the expense of developing and maintaining a quality highway network — the overwhelmingly preferred travel mode in the region. 

Read the entire commentary here.

MAP-21 Provision May Hurt BRT

Posted on July 21, 2012, 1:23pm | Baruch Feigenbaum

One of the policy changes in the recently passed Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st century (MAP-21) bill may help fixed-rail systems at the expense of BRT. According to Larry Ehl at Transportation Issues Daily:

The change is the criteria for distributing funding through the transit Fixed Guideway program. Under SAFETEA-LU the program provided funds to agencies through a formula based on a variety of transit services like commuter rail, light rail, cable car, and transit on HOV lanes. The new bill eliminates transit on HOV lanes from the Fixed Guideway funding formula, unless the lanes are used exclusively by transit.

This change affects Seattle, Minneapolis, San Jose, Orange County and Phoenix particularly hard. The Seattle transit agencies could collectively lose $20-$25 million in annual funding. This change penalizes states that invest in HOV’s that many buses use to transport people quickly and cleanly. All five metro areas for their respective city sizes exceed the average percentage of commuters who ride transit. These metro areas are being penalized for constructing and operating efficient and effective transit systems. 

Who was lobbying for these changes? Senators representing fixed-guideway rail systems in the northeast and Chicago were behind the changes. Eliminating HOV eligibility from the fixed-guideway funds frees up more money to be spent on rail. Certain senior members such as Chuck Schumer of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees transit, eliminated HOV eligibility. These same Senators sat on the conference negotiating committee and ensured that these cuts became law.

Why did affected cities not object more strenuously? From Larry Ehl: 

Additionally, few transit agencies across the country were very impacted by the change. The life or death of an amendment or provision in the Senate usually is directly related to how many states are impacted.  In this case, very few states were harmed by making the change, and the advocates were very senior Senators who ended up serving as the bills negotiators.  That’s a combination nearly impossible to overcome. 

On the positive side, MAP-21 created a new “High Intensity Motorbus State of Good Repair” program that allocates a small amount of funding for transit service based on HOV lane mileage. However, no one is sure exactly how much funding will be provided to affected cities. Currently, it looks as if most of the affected communities, particularly Seattle, will be a net loser in federal transit funds. 

All types of federal transit funding are problematic because federal resources are used to support local projects. The most effective transit services receive a great deal of local funding and rely very little on federal resources. But if the federal government is going to provide funding, BRT projects are one of the most worthy types of projects. They have extremely low capital-costs, have much lower operating costs than fixed-rail projects and can be easily moved if necessary. Metro areas can create a BRT network at the same cost as building 2-3 light-rail lines. And BRT is a better match to low-density metro areas. BRT also is less polluting than rail in most metro areas. 

Politicians have little interest determining which type of transit is better. Elected officials are almost always running for reelection. One of the problems with Congress is that members look out for themselves first and the nation’s transportation system second. This is one of the reasons that so much federal funding is spent on wasteful local projects. While it is not surprising that politicians are looking after their own interests, it is unfortunate that some cities lose simply because their Senate members are not the most powerful.