Our future rides on public transportation

Yesterday, I talked transit with the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). I wanted everyone in the room to know this:

The Obama Administration understands that effective transit is absolutely critical to the success of our cities, our metropolitan regions, and our rural communities.

We want to move people where they need and want to go; we want to do it in a sustainable way; and we want folks to have real choices.

Look, mobility not only drives our economy; it is part of our way of life. And in the future, transit will have to carry an even greater share of that mobility.

  APTA had a nice message for me. (Thanks, everyone!) My message to them had 3 key points:

1. Transit is an innovation leader in America;
2. DOT is working hard on funding transit; and
3. Safety needs to become a greater part of the DOT transit conversation.

• There is no question that public transit is clearly driving mobility innovation in this country.

In my first 9 months at DOT, I have already visited 30 states and 54 cities, and I have seen some impressive projects. It's been fascinating; more importantly, it's been a lesson in what is possible.

The reality is that in the future, as we cut back the miles we drive in our personal vehicles, transit must provide an even greater share of American mobility.

So we’ve teamed up with HUD and EPA to create the federal government’s first sustainability partnership. Working together, we’ll coordinate and direct federal investments in transportation, housing, improved air quality, and water infrastructure. This will help ensure that we build more transit near affordable housing, that we combat sprawl, and that we help communities become both more livable and sustainable.

Our work will produce the most profound strategic shift in commuting and travel patterns that we've seen in more than half a century. Efficient, sustainable mobility is an idea whose time has come, and our nation's transit agencies are leading the way.

• The biggest challenge, as always, is funding.

Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act we've helped offset the budget shortfalls facing our states. We’ve awarded more than 680 transit grants worth $7.2 billion, with hundreds of millions of dollars in Recovery Act funds still in the pipeline.

Some of these funds have provided operating assistance for agencies at a critical time, preserving service and keeping workers on the job. Some have kept capital programs on track.

Furthermore, the President and I are determined to work with Congress to pass a transportation bill that funds our priorities. It won’t happen as quickly as we'd like, but it will happen. And when it does, it will streamline federal transportation programs, identify new sustainable funding sources, and attend more carefully to local and regional priorities.

When we're finished, you’ll see that localities and metropolitan regions will have more say and greater flexibility in how federal dollars are spent. That will lead to better outcomes for all Americans.

• Finally, there is one area we cannot overlook, and that’s safety.

At DOT, safety remains our single highest priority. And recent transit accidents in Washington, D.C., California, Massachusetts, and elsewhere have made it clear that FTA should be given a stronger role. You can expect to hear more from us on this in the future.

So, do we have a lot going on in American transit? You bet. Our future rides on it.

Comments

[Michael E. Bailey]

Transit will be an important part in creating an environmentally friendly transportation system. For every car that is taken off the road because the driver decided to use transit, that much more greenhouse gas emissions are removed and that much more chemicals that cause smog are removed. The good news for all transit systems here in California is that last week the California Supreme Court decided not to here the state's appeal of the California Court of Appeals decision that said the state can't eliminate funding for transit operations. So there will again be some state funding for transit and that will help. We also need more representative and visionary leadership on transit organization boards of directors and improved relationships between the boards of directors and the unions that represent drivers and mechanics. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

[Stephen Oliveri]

I'm writing to express the desire and need for a stronger national intercity rail network. AMTRAK has not been funded to the levels it needs to be over the years to expand and enhance its service across the country. Highways get billions of dollars a year...Airports receive massive funding...yet the only intercity rail provider in America always seems to be just "hanging on", and not thriving, due to lack of funding.

I realize that the new administration is determined to help AMTRAK expand, but the expansion needs to be on a national level, and should not be predicated on financial support from states when the route is part of the national network. Case in point the former Sunset Limited service between New Orleans and Orlando. This was never a state funded segment before Hurricane Katrina, and yet AMTRAK is now insisting for state funding for the service to resume. That, in my opinion, is a travesty. The route segment is part of the broader national network. It could have been resumed in mid 2006 but AMTRAK has been playing games with the public and has been doing whatever they can to keep it discontinued. It has just been excuse after excuse, and as a taxpayer and close follower/advocate of AMTRAK, it's insulting. Also insulting was the report recently sent to Congress by AMTRAK detailing what it would take for the service to resume. Does AMTRAK even want to operate trains anymore? It sure seems like they do not.

I think the government needs to fund AMTRAK well and at the same time keep them honest so situations like the above example, where communities all along the Gulf Coast have gotten the short end of the stick to put it very mildly, don't happen again.

[Rob]

Yes, our future does ride on public transit . . . but state highway folks are charting the course. Not only do we need to dramatically change the monetary commitment to transit, but we must fundamentally alter the balance of power between state DOTs and and MPOs. Not only are many state DOTs unable to properly evaluate transit alternatives, but their culture, training, and drive for self preservation biases their decision-making processes strongly in favor of roadway solutions. If we are to have a sustainable future, we must get people out of their cars and stop building more urban highway lanes that invariably fill-up with more cars. Instead, create rail alternatives where density appropriate (or BRT where density would not support rail, and *only* where there is not density to support rail), and convert *all* highway lanes to congestion pricing, with the price high enough to drive mode shift amongst those not otherwise inclined to take transit. Use the revenue to support both highway and transit operations.

[John Frank]

I hope that with all the emphasis on high speed corridors that DOT will not forget our long distance trains that link the corridors together. In addition to improving the existing network there are some glaring gaps in the system such as New Orleans to Florida, Texas to Colorado, and Texas north to the Twin cities. Thank you.

[Richard L Wright]

I would very much like to see more emphasis on passenger rail. Amtrak has long been a poster-child for poor management, and it's time for the federal government to insist Amtrak step up, and actually run the railroad as though they want to run a railroad. The federal government simply must fund it We all know all forms of transportation are funded by governments at all levels, and Amtrak is no different. While HSR is a great idea we all know that it is going to cost a great deal to build and maintain. The current Amtrak system exists today, and can actually be ridden today. It needs to be emphasized, funded, improved, expanded and promoted. Excellent funding for Amtrak would still be only a small fraction of HSR costs. People will ride trains if they are served. The most important thing about passenger rail is "connectivity." As more cities are served it will exponentially expand the potential passenger count. Speaking of connectivity the people of the Gulf Coast have gone long enough without passenger service. Amtrak needs to bring back the Sunset Limited between New Orleans and Orlando or substitute another train in its place. This is a huge section of the country which remains unserved. Amtrak is talking "state funding" for its return. The idea of "state funding" for interstate trains is an idea which should be dead on arrival. The reasons state funding for interstate trains are a bad idea are myriad - lets get on with returning that service which should never have been dropped to begin with.

[Consumer Reviews]

In my opinion rapid transit is the way to go. People are paying too much and having to put up with too much congestion at airports to go to a city that is only a couple hundred miles away. If rapid transit was available to connect major metro areas to each other I think our country would be a lot better off in the long-run.

[OC Dermatologist]

I live in Orange County California which I am sure is one of the least mass transit friendly population centers in the nation. In spite of that, I would love to see the development of some sort of effective way to help us reduce travel in private vehicles.

[frank w.kovach sr.]

load weights,need to be lowered on highways to relieve stress that is be placed upon the highway,class -8 trucks have added wgt. to meets new standards,but shippers still trying to move loads that need to be lowered to be safer driver&public who riding beside them, been a driver since1984, i believe money and lives can be saved&moredrivers would have jobs due to a need to move the volume at a safer wgt. if you were to take a ride in a class-8 common carrier truck you will know there is a need to rethink the wgt limits for shippers ,45000lbs.plus is pounding our highways into unsafe roads.

[Terri Garbstiko]

Yes, our future does ride on public transit . . . but state highway folks are charting the course. Not only do we need to dramatically change the monetary commitment to transit, but we must fundamentally alter the balance of power between state DOTs and and MPOs. Not only are many state DOTs unable to properly evaluate transit alternatives, but their culture, training, and drive for self preservation biases their decision-making processes strongly in favor of roadway solutions. If we are to have a sustainable future, we must get people out of their cars and stop building more urban highway lanes that invariably fill-up with more cars. Instead, create rail alternatives where density appropriate (or BRT where density would not support rail, and *only* where there is not density to support rail), and convert *all* highway lanes to congestion pricing, with the price high enough to drive mode shift amongst those not otherwise inclined to take transit. Use the revenue to support both highway and transit operations.