Bold plans, big changes: Vignettes from Transportation Research Board

By Arline Welty

More than 10,000 policymakers, elected officials, researchers and advocates from around the world gathered recently in Washington D.C. at the annual Transportation Research Board conference to share insights on new transportation research and challenge each other on various transportation strategies.

Active Trans was there to bring home national best practices and research. Here are a few nuggets that highlight the groundbreaking and innovative work that is happening nationally… and right here in Chicagoland.

We like livability! …whatever that is

Federal agencies (U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Housing and Urban Development) trumpeted their inter-agency emphasis on funding livability projects. While the leadership of these agencies expressed support for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s livability priorities, a clear definition of livability was harder to establish.

Beth Osborne, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy at the Department of Transportation defined livability as “the mobility and access benefits of having transportation choices. Livability is when grandparents can live next to their grandchildren.”

A different take on the concept came from Shelley Poticha, Senior Advisor for Sustainable Housing and Communities at Housing and Urban Development, who said, “Livability is focused on transportation choices; affordable housing, enhancing economic competitiveness and supporting existing communities.”

We support livability’s inherent link to good transportation choices. If you were at Open Streets, or if you’ve shopped by bike, you know what livability looks and feels like. We look forward to these agencies’ shared definition of livability because we think our projects (bus rapid transit, bike boulevards) will be extremely competitive.

The funding dilemma

Everyone seemed to have something to say about what constitutes fair and sustainable transportation funding. Elected officials, highway user groups and parking zealots debated funding at the conference and discussed everything from market-rate parking pricing to readjusting federal transportation funding.

One solution that came up was raising the gas tax. Since 1993, 18.4 cents per gallon (regardless of the price per gallon) funds transportation projects. So if people drive fewer miles and purchase less fuel, the government has less in the coffer to fund transportation.

Furthermore, when gasoline prices increase at the pump, there is no corresponding increase in the money that goes to transportation projects. The problem with this system is that it incentivizes inefficiency; our economy and overall transportation funding depend on keeping people in their cars, driving longer!

Any proposals to reduce subsidies for driving, fueling, or parking are extremely controversial. Even when drivers understand that a toll road or downtown “congestion charge” will reduce their travel time and reduce congestion, they are still politically unpopular solutions. The key to successfully increasing dollars for bicycling, walking, and transit is to get public buy-in early with controversial funding proposals. .

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will be a federal Transportation Bill, which would codify any multi-modal or livability funding proposals, in 2010. Therefore, some advocates and federal policy advisors suggest that transportation projects that affect livability, jobs, and the climate should be bundled into a federal Jobs Bill or the federal Climate Bill. That highlights an opportunity for local municipalities to promote the funding of multi-modal projects in their communities through more than one funding source.

Other funding announcements to keep on your radar: the status of a proposed National Infrastructure Bank, which will be made public on Feb. 1 and a proposed continued round of TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grants could be announced on February 17 as part of a second round of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Our proposed path

The conference reinforced what we already know about expanding biking and walking: Transportation choices depend on the funding available for them. Additionally, it takes a strong, multi-modal transportation vision to actually provide the basis for funding proposals. Chicagoland has mixed results on this. Many advocates and researchers respect the work that Chicago has done. It stands out on the national stage with the superlative transit ridership data it has collected. Our 10,000 bicycle parking racks are enviable. And yet frigid Minneapolis has higher levels of bicycling and Chicago is in the lowest percentile when it comes to our per capita funding for bike/ped initiatives.

And people are proving it. The indomitable John Pucher, PhD, a professor in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, told us at the conference that he will soon release his next research paper, where he highlights Chicago as a national case study. His work will likely reveal Chicago’s biggest opportunities for growth when it comes to bicycling. The national advocacy group Alliance for Biking and Walking also unveiled a report last week that ranks states and major cities in terms safety, mode share, funding, and levels of biking and walking.

When are we going to get bold about reallocating our street space to give pedestrians better crosswalks, low-cost plazas and shorter crossing distances as seen in New York City? Where are Chicago’s “green waves” that optimize green light timing for bicycling speeds of 12 mph? These are already successfully in Portland and Copenhagen. Even bolder, what would it take to get us to Oregon’s aggressive targets: a 50 percent mandated reduction in vehicle miles traveled, complemented by a 90 percent increase in transit funding? Talk about bold moves!

Additionally, three research works were heavily lauded at Transportation Research Board: the Moving Cooler study, which highlights innovative transportation policies; December 2009’s edition of The Lancet, which quantifies the health benefits from congestion reduction scenarios; and the Curacao study which highlighted effective road pricing strategies.

The Transportation Research Board conference showcased an abundance of research, policy and far-reaching ideas that challenge Active Trans, Chicago, and our members to fight for our shared vision together with Mayor Daley. Even in the absence of a federal Transportation Bill, there are innovations and investments that Chicago and the region must make in order to position ourselves as the greenest city in America.

Arline Welty is Active Trans’ Director of Development.