Introduction

The purpose of this effort, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), has been to foster a dialogue among peers at transportation and planning agencies about their experiences with promoting public transit and, in particular, the challenges they face related to bus rapid transit (BRT) projects, as well as the solutions that they have developed in response. Agencies from dozens of large cities around the United States participated in this peer-to-peer exchange and more can benefit from this effort via this report, which provides a synthesis of key findings and recommendations.

This was an important and valuable endeavor, given the increasing use of BRT service around the world over the past 25 years, and its recent proliferation in U.S. cities in particular. BRT has generated great interest among large U.S. cities as they look for ways to improve mobility and make more efficient use of their street space, at a relatively low cost. Projects such as the Metro Rapid system in Los Angeles, the HealthLine in Cleveland, and the Silver Line in Boston demonstrate the potential benefits of BRT.

While there has been substantial success on these projects, the size and density of many U.S. cities create unique challenges for implementing BRT, as does the age of the underlying infrastructure in many older cities. Issues such as traffic impacts, physical separation, and utility conflicts are of great concern and can often inhibit the fast and effective implementation of BRT in large cities, particularly within the central business district (CBD) or with mature road infrastructure and street grids developed more than a century ago. Large cities can also face unique challenges in areas such as public outreach, construction techniques, and interagency coordination. As major cities in the United States, Canada, and around the world have struggled with these issues and developed solutions, they have identified certain ideas and actions that have applicability in other locales facing similar challenges. Convening practitioners from these cities created an unparalleled opportunity to share lessons learned and strengthen BRT projects around the country.

The practitioner discussions convened for this project were complemented and supplemented by presentations and advice from outside experts in various relevant disciplines, including engineering, marketing and public outreach. These experts helped to frame the issues, discuss solutions used around the world and throughout the country, and provide expert opinions on the applicability of various options in different local contexts. This exchange took place through a series of in-person workshops, held in three different U.S. cities. It has been documented by the research team in order to develop a compendium of the discussions, including key findings, the options discussed and conclusions reached, and this final summary. As a result, other practitioners and researchers beyond the workshop participants also stand to benefit from access to these materials.

In organizing the workshops, the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University/Wagner supported FTA’s objective of addressing the unique barriers to the implementation of exclusive BRT running ways on the streets of highly-congested, large cities. To support that objective, FTA seeks to:

• Identify agencies, economic enterprises, and other parties with a vital interest in promoting the more efficient use of traffic lanes.
• Engage such agencies and to develop cooperative strategies among them based on shared goals and measurable economic costs and benefits.
• Support these strategies with engineering, economic, and planning expertise and documentation.
• Utilize the most advanced technology, financial instruments, and management techniques.
• Conduct and facilitate workshops and other exchanges among key agencies.
• Report findings plainly and quickly to FTA, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), member cities, and the public.
• Reach out to interested large city agencies, domestically and internationally.

Read full report (PDF) here: Peer-to-Peer Information Exchange on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Bus Priority Best Practices

About the Federal Transit Administration
fta.dot.gov
“FTA is one of 11 operating administrations within the U.S. Department of Transportation with over 500 employees located in Washington, DC and 10 regional offices across the nation. As authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users of 2005 (SAFETEA-LU), the FTA provides stewardship of combined formula and discretionary programs totaling more than $10B to support a variety of locally planned, constructed, and operated public transportation systems throughout the United States. Transportation systems typically include buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, monorail, passenger ferry boats, inclined railways, or people movers.”

“It is our belief that once citizens become aware of the significant costs and risks associated with a compromised transportation system operating at less than optimal capacity, they will feel more compelled to demand calls for action that will, in turn, prompt policymakers to act.”

So concludes a new report from the Miller Center, a University of Virginia-based think tank whose 2009 report, Well Within Reach: America’s New Transportation Agenda, attained a celebrity status by being featured in a White House briefing hosted by President Obama. The new report, entitled Are We There Yet? presents the results of discussions held at a November 2011 Miller Center-hosted conference at its Washington DC offices. The gathering was noteworthy for bringing together five former secretaries of transportation— Norman Mineta, Sam Skinner (who served as co-chairmen of the conference), Mary Peters, Rodney Slater and James Burnley. Sixty invited experts participated in the day-long discussions which featured a wide range of points of view.

The report, in the words of Miller Center’s president, former Virginia Governor Gerald Baliles, is intended to provide “a road map for effectively capturing the nation’s attention and uniting the American people behind a compelling message about the urgent need for investment, innovation and improvement in our transportation system.” It proposes to do so through a coordinated four-pronged communication campaign that would link local transportation investment opportunities and benefits to national-level policy decisions.

Appeals for Action Fall on Deaf Ears

But the report’s belief in the compelling need to increase federal spending on transportation, nor the sense of frustration about a lack of progress on transportation legislation that was palpable among the conference participants, do not seem to be shared by the public or the politicians.

Infrastructure Investment did not even make the top ten list of public priorities in the latest Pew Research Center survey of domestic concerns cited at the conference. Calls by two congressionally mandated commissions to vastly increase transportation infrastructure spending have gone ignored. So have repeated pleas by advocacy groups such as Building America’s Future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Transportation for America.

Why do appeals to increase infrastructure spending fail to resonate with the public? One widely held view is that people simply do not trust the federal government to spend their tax dollars wisely. As proof, evidence is cited that a great majority of state and local transportation ballot measures do get passed. They get approved because voters know precisely where their tax money is going. The Miller Center report agrees that focusing on specific local projects has the best potential for garnering support for greater transportation investment. However, whether an emphasis on local transportation issues would translate into expanded support for federal involvement, as the report suggests, is open to question.

Failure of Negative Communication Strategies

Another reason why the public does not share the report’s sense of urgency is that people see no cause for alarm. State DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed. Potholes are rare, transit service is generally reliable, and train wrecks and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between. The revenue from the Highway Trust Fund arguably provides sufficient resources to keep the existing transportation system in a state of good repair.

The oft-cited “D” that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given America’s infrastructure (along with an estimate of $2.2 trillion price tag needed to fix it) is taken with a few grains of salt. The engineers’ lobby has a vested interest in increasing infrastructure spending as do the legions of road and transit builders, rail and road equipment manufacturers, construction firms, and their Washington lobbyists that urge Congress to raise spending levels on transportation.

“Should I believe the pundits or my own eyes?” asked Charles Lane, editorial writer for the Washington Post who had traveled thousands of miles across America without seeing any evidence of “crumbling infrastructure.” He wrote about his experience in a Washington Post commentary last year (“The U.S. infrastructure argument that crumbles upon examination,” Washington Post, October 31, 2011)

Lane’s skepticism is shared by many elected representatives in Congress. For the Republican leadership and the rank-and-file the goals of reigning in spending and reducing the deficit, as reflected in the adopted FY 2013 House budget, take precedence over what they feel are often politically inspired and inadequately documented concerns about deteriorating infrastructure. For the congressional conservatives, the better solution lies in narrowing the scope of the federal-aid program and shifting more responsibility for transportation to states and metropolitan areas.

Need for More Specificity

This does not mean that the concerns expressed by the Miller Center report are baseless. Aging infrastructure is a fact of life and the country does need to invest more in expanding the capacity of its transportation infrastructure to accommodate future population growth. But in making a case for higher spending, the transportation community must learn to do a better job of explaining why, how and where they propose to spend those funds. Vague and unsupported claims that the nation’s infrastructure is “falling apart” or that “a third of major roads in the United States are in poor condition” will not be taken seriously and will be dismissed as self-serving claims of special interests. People want to know more precisely where the claimed inadequacies of the transportation system lie, where their tax dollars are going, and what they are getting for their money.

To its credit, the report acknowledges the limited value of negative messages such as focusing on the harmful consequences of failure to deal with “crumbling” infrastructure. It argues instead for setting a more positive tone, a message that would emphasize the themes of economic development, job creation and improving the quality of life. But its plea for action could have been more convincing and helpful had it been more explicit in explaining to skeptical lawmakers precisely what major capital investment needs are not being met and how failure to make those investments is negatively affecting the nation’s economy and competitiveness.  A careful analysis reveals a far more modest “infrastructure deficit” than advocacy groups and lobbyists would like to have us believe according to the findings of a study  recently presented to state legislators by Prof. David Hartgen (“Are Highways Really ‘Crumbling’?– 20-Year Trends in Road Conditions”.)

Can we still afford multi-year authorizations?

“Ultimately, the hope is that a sea change in public awareness and engagement will transform reauthorization of the federal surface transportation program into “must-pass” legislation”

As the above quote suggests, the report assumes that multi-year authorizations of the federal-aid transportation program should continue into the future. True, long term authorizations have been a longstanding feature of the federal -aid transportation program. They have been justified by the need for contract authority, i.e ability for state DOT’s to make binding financial commitments for major multi-year projects in advance of annual appropriations.

But there is a growing sense among the lawmakers on Capitol Hill that Congress may be forced to abandon the practice of multi-year reauthorizations. The prevailing fiscal and political environment makes it difficult if not impossible to raise hundreds of billions of investment dollars in a single legislative package. At current levels of expenditure a five-year authorization would require approximately $260 billion;  highway trust fund revenue and interest over the same time frame is projected to generate $175 billion, leaving an unfunded shortfall of approximately $85 billion. For a six-year bill, the unfunded shortfall would reach $100 billion. Where is that money to come from?

Hence, short-term bills (annual or bi-annual), requiring only relatively modest amounts in offsets or general fund supplements may become instead the accepted practice. The fact that the Senate has barely mustered enough funds for a two-year bill, while the House has been unable to come up with any plausible funding for its five-year bill, suggests that the days of multi-year transportation authorizations may indeed be over.

Preserving, modernizing and expanding our transportation infrastructure is an important national priority and the Miller Center is to be commended for its thoughtful and articulate advocacy of these goals. But, as the report itself acknowledges, the desire for more transportation spending collides with, and must be tempered by, the national imperative to come to grips with the nation’s fiscal problems and the need to reduce the mounting deficit. As Congress weighs the future of the federal-aid transportation program, keeping a balanced perspective should be its guiding priority.

…

C. Kenneth Orski is a public policy consultant and former principal of the Urban Mobility Corporation. He has worked professionally in the field of transportation for over 30 years, in both the public and private sector. He is editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, now in its 22nd year of publication.

-projecth112 on YouTube

For the past 20 years, Foster has been among the labor movement’s leading environmental advocates. He was chair of the USW’s International Executive Board task force on environmental policy and vigorously worked to bridge the divide between workers and environmentalists in the Northwest and throughout the United States. In 2008, David Foster was one of two inaugural winners of the Peter A. A. Berle Environmental Integrity Award, alongside James E. Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The award recognizes demonstrated courage and integrity in defense of the environment by public officials and private citizens in the United States. In 2004, Foster was awarded the Jane Lehman Bagley Award from the Tides Foundation for his work building labor-environmental coalitions in the United States.

David Foster

Building 21st Century Infrastructure

We’ve Got the Skills; We Just Lack the Wills. Now Is the Best Time to Build!

It’s about National Security and Economic Competitiveness

Taking Responsibility

A Shared Vision

Download Transcript (PDF): David Foster on The Infra Blog

Introduction

The need to cut our national debt and annual budget deficits is likely to be a force in policy considerations for many years to come. The Congressional Budget Office’s January 2012 Budget and Economic Outlook projects a $1.1 trillion federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2012, assuming current laws remain unchanged.

In recent years the federal government has posted record deficits, with the deficit’s share of the gross domestic product the highest since World War II.  As the economy slowly recovers, there is likely to be increasing pressure on Congress and the President to tackle the growing levels of debt.

At the same time our national transportation infrastructure is in need of substantial investment. The backbone of the surface transportation network, the Interstate Highway System, is reaching the end of its useful life and much of it will have to be reconstructed in the next decade. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, more than 26 percent of our nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.    Our Air Traffic Control system is reliant on technologies and polices developed over 60 years ago.    And while gas prices are rising and more American are seeking alternative modes of transport, our mass transit and intercity rail systems are struggling to keep a state of good repair, let alone expand to meet the needs of the future.

Federal transportation programs are caught in the middle of these two issues. For the first time in decades, both decreasing revenues and increasing demands are straining existing funding structures. Recent attempts in Congress to raise revenues for the existing transportation programs have been desperate attempts to find outside offsets, with no appetite to increase existing taxes and fees. It appears that the current debt crisis will linger for years while the United States works to repay its debts in a slow economic recovery, limiting government resources in all areas.

On the other hand, transportation investment can be considered as a component of reducing the national debt – effective spending on transportation can provide short-term job creation and long-term economic growth, which in turn produces greater tax revenues and reduces future investment needs. In order to position itself effectively for increased funding from the federal government in this fiscal environment, the transportation community needs to make the case for investment within the greater context of deficit reduction.

In order to shape and contribute to this conversation, the Eno Center for Transportation held its 2011 Policy Forum titled Transportation Investment as Part of a Deficit-Reduction Package on November 16, 2011, at George Mason University in Arlington, Va. The forum convened expert panelists in the transportation field in a series of interactive sessions with forum attendees. This paper summarizes the context of the federal deficit, the existing funding structures for the federal programs, and the key points and lessons learned from the Policy Forum by drawing from the experience and insights of panelists and other resources.

Read Full report (PDF) here: Transportation Investment as Part of a Deficit-Reduction Package

About Eno Center for Transportation
www.enotrans.com
“The Eno Transportation Foundation is a neutral, non-partisan think-tank that promotes policy innovation and provides professional development opportunities across the career span of transportation professionals.”

What: The Carrollton Viaduct, completed in 1829,  is the oldest railroad bridge still in use in the world

Where: The Carrollton Viaduct is located at Gwynn’s Falls near Carroll Park in Baltimore, MD.

Length: 312 ft.

Deck width: 22 ft.

Interesting facts: The viaduct was designated a National Historic Landmark on November 11, 1971 and was additionally designated a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

The Carrollton Viaduct was the first stone masonry bridge built for railroad use in the United States.

It was named in honor of Charles Carroll of Carrollton (the longest-lived and last-surviving signatory of the Declaration of Independence.  He died at the age of 95).

The cost of the bridge upon completion was $58,106.73.

A temporary heavy timber structure, called centering, was first built to support the massive stone voussoirs of the arch until they were keyed and could support themselves.

Executive Summary

This paper analyzes the problem of wastewater generated from the hydraulic fracturing process of producing natural gas, particularly with regard to production in the Marcellus Shale. It shows that, while hydraulic fracturing (often called “hydrofracking” or “fracking”) generates massive amounts of polluted wastewater that threaten the health of our drinking water supplies, rivers, streams, and groundwater, federal and state regulations have not kept up with the dramatic growth in the practice and must be significantly strengthened to reduce the risks of fracking throughout the Marcellus region and elsewhere.

Hydrofracking and the production of natural gas from fracked wells yield by-products that must be managed carefully to avoid significant harms to human health and the environment. These wastewater by-products are known as “flowback” (fracturing fluid injected into a gas well that returns to the surface when drilling pressure is released) and “produced water” (all wastewater emerging from the well after production begins, much of which is salty water contained within the shale formation).

Both types of wastewater contain potentially harmful pollutants, including salts, organic hydrocarbons (sometimes referred to simply as oil and grease), inorganic and organic additives, and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). These pollutants can be dangerous if they are released into the environment or if people are exposed to them. They can be toxic to humans and aquatic life, radioactive, or corrosive. They can damage ecosystem health by depleting oxygen or causing algal blooms, or they can interact with disinfectants at drinking water plants to form cancer-causing chemicals.

Read full report (PDF) here: In Fracking’s Wake

About the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
www.nrdc.org
“NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is a national nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Montana, and Beijing.”

An update on the 7 subway extension project that will bring the Flushing Line to Manhattan’s West Side. -mtainfo on YouTube.

Secretary Mineta was the 14th U.S. Secretary of Transportation, serving under President George W. Bush from 2001-2006. During his tenure, Secretary Mineta was responsible for the US DOT’s $61.6 billion annual budget and nearly 60,000 employees.

He also was U.S. Secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton, becoming the first Asian American to serve in the Cabinet. Before joining the Commerce Department, he was vice president for special business initiatives at Lockheed Martin Corporation.

From 1975-1995, he represented California’s Silicon Valley in the U.S. House of Representatives. He also co-founded the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus and served as its first chair. Secretary Mineta is a former Ranking Democratic Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Public Works and Transportation, serving for more than 20 years.

During his Congressional career, the Secretary championed investment increases for transportation infrastructure and was a key author of the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. This shifted decisions on highway and mass transit planning to state and local governments, led to major upsurges in mass transit ridership, and provided environmentally friendly transportation elements such as pedestrian and bicycle paths. He also oversaw the airline industry’s deregulation in the 1980s and pressed for more funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Norman Mineta

It’s Time to Go Grassroots

I-35W & former U.S. Representative Jim Oberstar, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

We Discuss; Other Nations Invest

Manufacturers

Download full transcript (PDF): Norman Mineta on The Infra Blog