Behind Bars

I admit it, I belong behind bars.  It may be a shocker, but these bars mean freedom, not imprisonment.  On a typical day, wake up, have coffee, take a shower, eat breakfast, get into my car, and I am trapped, imprisoned by traffic.  I can’t relax, or enjoy myself because I am moving along at a snail’s pace, defending the small piece of ground in front of my car protecting me from the doom and damage of the vehicle in front of me.  I arrive at the office already worn down a bit from the commute knowing that I will do the reverse in just a few hours.

Today was different.  I woke up, and put on my riding gear, hopped on my bike and took a different way to work.  I arrived in the office, took a shower, ate breakfast and started my day with more energy and excitement than I have ever felt while stuck in traffic.  My bike ride is one hour door to door, compared to my drive which is forty minutes.  So, yes, it does take longer, but rather than losing time, I am gaining energy, and living a healthier life.

Riding a bike is a simple joy, and if you haven’t ridden since your childhood, take a moment and reflect what it was like.  Are you smiling yet?  If you ride regularly, you know exactly what I mean.  Bicycle commuting is so much more enjoyable than driving.  Pulling into the parking lot of my office on my bike gives me a sense of accomplishment unlike anything I have ever felt in my car.  Bicycle commuting puts a smile on my face, and an ever so slight burn in my legs.  I am overwhelmed with the knowledge that it was my sheer will power that got me to the office, and it will be my will power that will get me home.

Today marked day one of my Bike to Work Challenge.  I am pledging to ride once each week during the twenty week challenge.  I am excited to see my waistline shrink, watch my fuel expense, arrive to work happier, arrive home less stressed out, and sport a killer tan! 

Follow my adventures as a bicycle commuter.  Each day I ride, I will post a piece about my ride, and hopefully it will inspire you to join in and Bike to Work.

Read more »

4ft Bicycle Safe Passing Law Goes into Effect

On Monday, April 2, 2012 the Four Foot Safe Passing Law will go into effect. The law requires that:

• Bicycles must be operated in the right hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway.
• This does not apply to a bicycle using any portion of the road due to unsafe surface conditions.
• Motorists must overtake a bicycle with no less than four feet between the vehicle and the bicycle and at a “prudent reduced speed”.
• No turn by a motorist may interfere with a bicycle proceeding straight.
• Bicycles may be operated at a safe and reasonable speed appropriate for bicycles.

This further codifies the rights of bicyclists to be present in the roadway.  It also makes it safer for bicyclists to be on the roadway.  Of course, the law itself will only act as a catalyst for changing the habits of motorists; both the motoring and bicycling community must be sure to act responsibly and follow all the laws governing our roadways to ensure a safe environment for all roadway uses.

Read more »

Have We Stopped Dreaming Big in the United States?

We used to dream big in the United States.  There was a time when we looked across our land and made plans to travel further, faster, and more efficiently.  We didn’t let details stop us; we didn’t ask the price before embarking. We knew what was for the good of our nation, and we built accordingly.  We were a nation that built, and built big.

Driving the "Golden Spike" 

It was May 10, 1869 when history was made in the United States.  Dignitaries gathered at Promontory Summit, Utah to drive the Golden Spike, the final spike in the first transcontinental railroad in the United States.  Before this date, cross country travel was an arduous and sometimes deadly journey.  It was rarely made as a round trip venture.  With the completion of the railroad, it was now possible to travel from New York City to San Francisco by rail.

The Panama Canal

August 15, 1914 was the next great date in transportation history for the United States when the SS Ancon became the first ship to cross the Isthmus of Panama through the Panama Canal.  The opening of the canal not only changed American history, but redefined international shipping.  The Panama Canal made coast to coast shipping a much easier and safer proposition by no longer requiring ships to sail around Cape Horn, a dangerous proposition, even in the largest of sailing vessels.

June 29, 1956 is arguably the last date of significance in American transportation history.  On this day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, which created the modern interstate system.  After a grueling journey across our nation during a 1919 Army convoy, Eisenhower knew we needed a better system of roads in our country.  After experiencing the Autobahn during WWII, Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System to safely move goods, people, and military armaments across our nation.  The Interstate system is, for all intents and purposes, complete at a cost of approximately $485 billion.  It is the largest public works project in the history of man.

Our past history demonstrates that the size of our dreams and aspirations were not limited by anything, least of which being the size of the treasury.  We seemed to have lost our way over the past decade.  Rather than dreaming big by redefining mobility for American citizens and creating a new transportation network, we have allowed our representatives to think small, excruciatingly small.  Our current federal transportation bill expired in 2009 and has been extended with no change in funding levels or priorities.  By all estimations, the recent bill proposed in Congress is not likely to pass, leaving our federal government with no transportation plan.  Within our own state, transportation is cited as an important issue among voters and representatives, yet our Governor has not acted on the recommendations of his own Transportation Funding Advisory Commission.

We are at a crucial crossroads in the development of our transportation infrastructure.  With gasoline prices reaching record levels, highways experiencing daily congestion, and our air quality continuing to decline, something has to be done.  We are presented with the opportunity to make bold plans, plans that will redefine the United States in the twenty-first century.  Tapping the spirit that conceived of and built a transcontinental railroad, the Panama Canal, and the Interstate Highway System will give us nothing short of a magnificent solution.  Quarreling over the short term costs, the proper role of state and federal government, and preserving a system that no longer suits our needs does not improve mobility for our nation.  We need to dream big again, we need “magic to stir men’s blood.”

Read more »

Governor Corbett Does Not Fully Address Transportation Funding with the 2012-2013 Budget

In his budget address on February 7, 2012, Governor Tom Corbett mentioned transportation very briefly, stating that it is “critical that we address our transportation issues. This is not a budget item. It is too large for that. Transportation must be confronted as its own distinct and separate topic.”  The Governor then went on to say that he is willing to work with the legislature to address the problem.

The issue is not the size or scope of the transportation issues in Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania is at the top of the list of states with structurally deficient bridges and the American Society of Engineers gave our state very poor grades in their 2010 Infrastructure Report Card.  In April, 2011, Governor formed the Transportation Funding Advisor Commission and challenged the forty member commission with developing solutions that fund our transportation system.  The commission completed their work in August, 2011 with a report that was supported unanimously by the members of the commission.  The Governor has not released any public statements indicating his support for the report.  Since the report was released, bills have been introduced to both the Senate (in November) and House (in January) that reform the Department of Transportation and properly funds our transportation infrastructure; the bill are based on the recommendations made by the commission.  The Governor has not publicly commented on either the House or Senate Bills.

The Governor has essentially passed the responsibility for dealing with the problem to the legislature when he said our transportation issues should be handled separate from the budget process.  The legislature is left in a guessing game, wondering what elements of the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission Report the Governor will support.  We should expect more from him than a willingness to work with the legislature; we elected him to lead the process.

Transportation has always been a bipartisan issue.  Aging bridges are neither Republican nor Democrat; they have no concern for budgets or available funding when they need to be replaced.  The concern belongs to the residents of Pennsylvania.  When a bridge needs to be replaced and there is no money to do so, it must be closed and detoured.  Those detours cost us time and money; money that is not being used to replace the closed bridge.  Our transportation problems extend well past aging bridges and pothole filled roads and include a transit infrastructure that is outdated and inadequately serves the areas where the population is now located; a freight rail network that is incapable of handling increased volumes of freight, forcing more onto our already congested highways; and airports that are plagued with frequent delays because they were designed during a period when air travel was a luxury, not a necessity.

Transportation is certainly too large to be dealt with properly in the budget process, but it is also not so insignificant as to warrant only a brief mention in an address to the legislature.  If the Governor wants us to “continue the journey that will turn the road to recovery into the path to prosperity”, then we will need a good road map and a good driver behind the wheel.  He gave us the road map with the commission’s report, now we need him to be more than a backseat driver; we need him at the wheel. 

Read more »

PA House Democrats Introduce Transportation Funding Reform Bills

In late 2011, Representative Mike Hanna (D-76) and Representative Dan Frankel (D-23) introduced three pieces of legislation that greatly reform the way in which Pennsylvania funds its transportation system.  The three bills are very close to the three bills introduced by Senator Jake Corman (R-34) in to the Senate in November 2011.  The three bills follow the recommendations of the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission (TFAC) Report which was release in August 2011.  Governor Tom Corbett has not publicly supported either the report in August or the subsequent bills in the House and the Senate.

The transportation funding reform is more than funding reform bills, they are also modernize PennDOT, and generate savings within the department.  The three bills, HB 2099, HB 2101, and HB 2112 address each of these issues in a very similar fashion to Senate Bills SB 4, SB 1326, and SB 1327.

HB 2099 amends the Title 75 by increasing the fees PennDOT collects on such things as driver’s licenses, vehicle registration, violations of traffic control devices, and also sets the minimum average wholesale price of motor vehicle fuels.  Included is an increase from $36 for vehicle registration to $49.  Penalties for traffic control device violations will be increased to $75, not including any other fees or infractions the violation may involve.  The bill also addresses the “average wholesale price” of motor vehicle fuels.  The “average wholesale price” is the price that the state is able to tax motor vehicle fuels when it is before it is sold on the retail market.  The current average wholesale price is capped at $1.25 per gallon, or rather, the state is only allowed to tax the first $1.25 of wholesale fuel sales.  HB 2099 ramps this price up to $2.70 by 2017, but also does not limit the wholesale price at $2.70.

HB 2101 amends Title 75 to create an Intermodal Transportation Fund, amend the vehicle registration and driver’s license renewal periods, changes penalties imposed for driving without insurance, modifies regulations governing the use of radar speed control, changes inspection requirements for new cars, and allows for advertising revenue along state owned right of way.  The Intermodal Transportation Fund will be a dedicated fund that directs investments in aviation, rail freight, passenger rail, ports, and waterways.  This was a recommendation in the TFAC report, as these areas of transportation are drastically underfunded at the state level.  To offset the increased expenses of HB 2099, Pennsylvania drivers will benefit from expanding vehicle registration from one year to two and no more registration stickers.  New cars will also be made exempt from needing a safety inspection during the first two years.  The bill will allow for third party driver’s license exam centers to administer and issue a driver’s license; the tests will not differ to those administered by the state.  The bill increases the penalty for driving without insurance to $500 for reinstatement prior to the three month suspension.  Included in the bill is a provision that will allow PennDOT contractors the use of electronic speed monitoring (radar) within a work zone.  Lastly, the bill will allow for PennDOT to lease space for commercial advertising where it is not prohibited by Federal law.

The text of HB 2112 was not made available at the time this was written, however a summary was available and it appears as though the bill will amend Act 44 of 2007 to shift the entirety of the $450 million annual payment made by PennDOT by the PA Turnpike into a mass transit fund.  The money will be solely available for mass transit systems throughout the state.  The bill will also increase the portion of the state sales tax which is directed to mass transit.  Currently the portion of the sales tax dedicated to mass transit is 4.4%, under HB 2112 it will increase to 6.5%.

These three bills compliment, and are almost identical to the three Senate bills.  It is the hope of many legislators, transportation officials, and those in the transportation industry that 2012 is the year Pennsylvania begins to solve the problem of infrastructure funding.

Read more »

Could 2012 Be The Year?

As deadlines approach and deals are made, we sit and wait, and hope that yes, this could be the year. If only this applied to fans of the Philadelphia Phillies and not to those in the transportation industry. In September of 2009, the previous Federal Transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) expired. What is SAFETEA-LU, and why is it so important? This bill is the primary legislation that authorizes the federal government to spend tax revenue on transportation infrastructure projects. The bill specifies the various programs for transportation projects and the levels that those programs are funded. The revenue used to pay for all these projects is collected through a tax levied on motor vehicle fuels. SAFETEA-LU was passed in 2005, and had a four year lifespan. In those four years, the federal government pledged to allocate $286.4 Billion to projects nationwide.


When the bill expired in 2009, Congress took upon itself to extend the bill using the funding levels and formulas passed in 2005 until a new bill could be drafted and passed. Now, at the end of 2011, the bill has been extended eight times; the current extension is set to expire in March of 2012. Why is this a problem? Does money stop flowing to projects in March? The money does not stop flowing to current projects in development. The problem posed by the indefinite extensions of the transportation bill is that it makes project planning extremely difficult. With the continued extension of the bill, there is no guarantee that funding levels will remain constant when Congress votes to extend the bill. Without the assurance of consistent and reliable funding levels, large scale projects cannot be advanced through the planning and design process. The risk of not having funding to construct a project is too great, so states are reluctant to begin a new project.


There is some hope, and we are starting to see something developing in Washington. The current proposal, MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) is a glimmer of hope on the otherwise bleak transportation funding horizon. The bill, which originated in the Senate, provides as much as $85 Billion over the next two years. This is a short term fix, but the hope is that by passing a short term bill, rather than continuing to extend the current bill, Congress will have time to craft a long term transportation funding solution. There has also been a bi-partisan push in the House of Representatives to develop a long term solution.


A contributing factor to why there has been little development of a transportation bill is that Congress cannot agree on how to pay for the bill. Our current funding stream is derived from a tax levied on motor vehicle fuels. Congress has expressed no interest in increasing that tax, a tax which continues to have its buying power diminished as fuel economy standards increase. There have been ideas proposed such as a vehicle mileage tax, tolling interstate highways, and privatizing certain elements of the highway system. Unfortunately, there is no agreement on which method, or which methods will be used to fund transportation in the future.


Transportation infrastructure is critical to our nation’s economic growth. The ability to move goods and people is what built our economy, without continued funding dedicated to maintaining the infrastructure, we will face an even more daunting challenge rebuilding the American economy. A two year transportation bill would only be a stop gap measure. It would provide some assurance of funding levels and identify national priorities for infrastructure spending, but it does not provide the long term investments needed. We must demand a long term solution that funds our infrastructures at levels that allows state departments of transportation to properly maintain existing facilities, while expanding facilities that expand our transportation options. We must demand that funding not decline as time passes, as is the case with a fuel tax, but rather increases to keep pace with inflation. We must also let Congress know that we are willing to support changes to the funding system, and are willing to pay for our infrastructure. The time has passed to deal with our infrastructure, hopefully this is the year that something gets done.

Read more »

PA Senate to Vote on Safe Passing Legislation

House Bill 170, the Safe Bicycle Passing Bill, was passed by the PA House of Representatives on May 23, 2011, with overwelming support. Now it is up to the Senate to take action for safer streets. Ask your senator if they will support this important bill.

This bill would take the prinicple of "Share the Road" and make it an official part of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code through two important changes. The bill will:

• Require motor vehicles to pass bicyclists with a minimum of 4 feet
• Protect bicyclists from a “right hook” or “left hook,” where a motorist makes an improper turn into the bicyclist’s direction of travel

Motorists misjudging the space needed to pass a bicyclist, and motorists turning into the path of a bicyclist are two common causes of bicycle crashes, accounting for 12% of the total vehicle-bicycle crashes.

To date, at least 18 other states have passed similar safe passing bills, and several more states are currently considering these bills.

Read more »

Making Pennsylvania a Better Place for Bikes

Of the many programs I have worked on, the most popular and most successful has been the annual Bike to Work Challenge. The Bike to Work Challenge is a twenty week long challenge that begins in May, coinciding with national bike month, and runs through the middle of September. Participants in the challenge are encouraged to ride to work at least one day each week. Through a website that is dedicated to the challenge, participants log their miles, and are provided with a report showing how much fuel they have saved and how many pounds of carbon dioxide, they have saved from being emitted. This was the third year for the challenge. We had 150 participants log 42,000 miles. Over the past three years the challenge has logged almost 125,000 miles which saved 111,000 pounds of CO2. The riders have saved 5,700 gallons of gas, which equates to about $19,000. The challenge recently wrapped up, and many of this year’s riders have pledged to ride again next year.

The Bike to Work Challenge demonstrates that, when properly encouraged, people are willing to change their habits and rethink how they get to work. To reward each participant, we present them with a small prize package and a certificate displaying their miles for the year. The best prize is a smaller waistline. To promote the Bike to Work Challenge, we visit many of the region’s employers to talk with people about signing up. The single and largest opposition I hear is that the roads are just not safe to ride on, and there are no bike paths near my home or my office. This sentiment is very common, and as a participant in the challenge, I can validate that statement.

My experience working with the Bike to Work Challenge, and as an avid recreational cyclist have made it evident that we have a lot of room for improvement in Pennsylvania. The list of needs is lengthy, however there are some easy fixes that would have significant impacts for cyclists. There are improvements that can be made that benefit both motorists and cyclists, improvements that will benefit bicycle commuters, and improvements that will benefit the recreational cyclist.

Pennsylvania has more roads than most other states. We have more roads than all of our neighbors combined (excluding New York, however, we have more roads). State roads are about one third of the roads, municipal roads make up two-thirds of the roads in the state, however most of the vehicle miles traveled are on state owned roads. It is fair to say we love our roads in Pennsylvania. What we don’t love, it seems, is good quality roads. Thirty eight percent of all roads in the state have been rated as poor quality. We all know it when we are on a poor quality road, there are potholes, cracks, uneven pavement, puddling after a rain storm, and broken pavement at the edges. For a motorist these elements can cause premature wear to tires, brakes, and shock absorbers. Hitting a pothole can cause damage to the tire and wheel, but mostly makes for an uncomfortable ride. Things like potholes and cracks are an inconvenience for a motorist, but to a cyclist, they can be extremely dangerous. The bar jarring experience of hitting a pothole in a car can throw a cyclist from their bike. A broken pavement edge makes it impossible for a cyclist to safely reenter the pavement, and uneven pavement reduced breaking capacity. More than poor pavement quality, there are many safety concerns that make cycling dangerous. Limited or non-existent shoulders force cyclists into travel lanes, poor sight lines around curves create a blindspot.

Investing in improving road quality conditions benefits all Pennsylvanians. Motorists will be able to extend the life of their vehicles and have a more enjoyable driving experience, while cyclists will benefit from having a safe place to ride. Many of the fixes will make the roads safer for both bicycles and motorists. It is important that when improvements are being planned, that elements to make it safer for bicyclists be included.

Bicycle commuting is a great way to address some of the most significant challenges we face in society. The benefits of bicycle commuting are three-fold: a bicycle commuter is not burning fossil fuels, or releasing harmful exhaust fumes. A bicycle commuter is not adding to congested highways, and requires much less expensive amenities than an automobile. Bicycle commuting is a great form of exercise, which addresses the obesity problem. Making it more convenient for bicycle commuting is a challenge, our past decisions in land use and transportation planning have made for a significant barrier. We have developed our land with a primary focus on the automobile. This focus separated land uses and spread development far across the land. Very few people live close to their work, and the roads they take to get to work are typically highways. Those two elements make bicycle commuting a challenge. To effectively reduce congestion, we need to make driving an option.

How do we do this? First, encourage mixed use and traditional neighborhood development. These two land use strategies place office and retail space closer to the home by not having separate districts for each use. Think of boroughs as being the first mixed use developments in Pennsylvania. Building walkable and bikeable communities means that the automobile is only one option of many when it comes to transportation choices. Sidewalks and bike lanes provide more transportation options for people that live closer to work. Article VII-A of The Municipalities Planning Code provides clear directions on how to accomplish this type of development. We should incentivize the development of Traditional Neighborhood Development, rather than continuing sprawl development.

Lastly, Pennsylvania has some of the most breathtaking vistas overlooking farms and fields that have remained unchanged for a century. There are quaint villages, rolling hills, and wonderful natural features, all sites best seen from a bicycle. It has been said that, you never truly appreciate the topography of a region until you have ridden over it on a bicycle. Recreational cyclists are the people that enjoy riding comfortably down a trail, stopping to take in the views, and maybe eat lunch in a village along the way. Pennsylvania is ripe to attract bicycle tourists, but we must first invest in the facilities they need. To accommodate recreational cyclists, we must expand our network of off-road bike trails. In greater Philadelphia we are lucky to have a great trail network, one that is continuing to be built. The Schuylkill River Trail sees thousands of cyclists each week during the warmer months. Because of the visionary efforts of many, cyclists will one day be able to ride from Pottsville to Philadelphia and never have to mix with traffic on the road. In the northern tier of PA, the Pine Creek Trail takes cyclists through the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, all along the banks of the Pine Creek, all on a former railroad bed. The Great Allegheny Passage, which begins just outside Pittsburgh, connects to Washington D.C. via a dedicated right of way, available only to bicycles and pedestrians. These great trails are economic engines for many of the areas they travel through, and inject millions of dollars each year into the local economies. Expanding the trail network throughout Pennsylvania will grow our tourism economy and provide opportunities for jobs and entrepreneurs in places that they may have not existed otherwise.

I have explained how investing in bicycle facilities can have a significant net positive impact for Pennsylvania, so how do we do it? Unlike its motorized counterpart the automobile, bicycles do not require extremely expensive infrastructure. For only a small fraction of the amount invested in our highway network, we can dramatically increase the options for cyclists. Before we increase the amount we spend on bikes, it is important that we have a well qualified, full time, bicycle coordinator within the department of transportation. PennDOT is well staffed with engineers and project managers whose sole focus is highways, bridges, transit and freight rail transportation, however, the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator is only one man and only a part-time position. It is imperative that this position is fully staffed so that bicycle and pedestrian needs are properly addressed within the department. It is an impediment to expanding bicycle facilities that we do not have a champion within the department of transportation.

It is also important that we dedicate funding, on an annual basis, to building the bicycle and pedestrian network. As the legislature reviews the recent Transportation Funding Advisory Commission report for ideas on modernizing the transportation infrastructure, including funding for bicycle facilities must be considered. The costs to building trails, and including full width shoulders is only minor compared to the costs associated with expanding highways and extending transit lines. One of the recommendations in the TFAC report is to amend Act 44 of 2007 to reallocate one hundred percent of the payment made by the Turnpike to fund transit. Consider dedicating a portion of those funds to the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Current and projected income from the PA Turnpike is $450 million per year. Dedicating even as little as five percent will will have a significant and meaningful impact on bicycle facility development. We can build a lot of facilities with an annual dedicated budget of $20 million. Fully funding a bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvement program yields much greater return than any other transportation improvements. In most cases, the right of ways already exist and only need minor modification for accommodation.

I hope that through this article I have made it evident that investing in bicycle facilities will greatly improve Pennsylvania. As we look to the future of transportation in the commonwealth, we should place a greater emphasis on the bicycle. Doing so will have long lasting impacts that make Pennsylvania the best place to live and do business in the US.

Read more »

Are the Roads a True Public Good?

To toll or not to toll, that seems to be the question. If you have been following the news along the US 422 Corridor, you have undoubtedly come across, or read, an article describing the efforts of Berks, Chester, and Montgomery Counties to explore alternative funding methods for the US 422 Corridor. The most controversial proposal has been the concept of tolling what is now a “free” road. It seems that the line is being drawn in the sand, and most appear to be on the side of “no toll.” The discussion of tolling has certainly ignited civil unrest over the notion of charging a fee for a public good.

It seems that the greater debate is over whether or not we should have to pay for our transportation services. Currently, the funding for highways is from a tax levied on the sale of motor fuel. In Pennsylvania the tax equals 49.5 cents per gallon (18.4 cents per gallon is sent to the United States Department of Transportation). With that tax money, PennDOT is responsible for funding every improvement project statewide. The formulas to determine how much goes to each region of the state are complex, and at times, confusing to understand even as an industry professional. What has become painfully clear during the past few years is that we are not taking in enough money to meet the demand for expenditure. This was the impetuous for the US 422 tolling proposal, creating a direct method for funding improvements needed on the corridor.

At a higher level, the debate over funding our infrastructure should first begin with the way we perceive our infrastructure, and whether that perception needs to change. Under our current model, public owned and operated highways (excluding the PA Turnpike) are treated as a public good. Our highways, a public good, can be accessed equally, at any time, without hindrance. As a public good, each user pays equally into the system regardless of how much the highway is used. This model breaks down when a majority of society attempts to access the public good at the same time. This is what happens every morning and evening, the majority of the corridor uses the highway to travel to and from work. The phenomena can be described as “the tragedy of the commons,” which states that increased use by one individual will benefit the individual to the detriment of all. In this case, the detriment is time lost due to traffic congestion.

An alternate and more appropriate way to view our highways is not as a public good but as a public utility. Imagine if electricity was a public good; it would mean that all PECO customers would be given the same bill, divided equally among all customers. There would be little incentive to limit use of electricity, because any individual reduction would not be significant enough to lower the bill. The incentive would be to use as much electricity as possible, since it would only increase the bill ever so slightly for all. Fortunately, we do not prescribe this model to the electricity because it is a public utility: we are all given access to the resource, but we must individually pay for our use. Why can’t this model apply to our highways?

Once we begin to think of our highways as a public utility instead of a public good, the funding models make much more sense. By collecting a user fee from those that use the highway means that those drivers will be paying for its improvements. If you never drive the highway, you are not asked to pay for it. By modifying user fees during peak demand hours, the option to delay a trip to save money becomes the option of the driver, incentivizing non-essential trips to be taken during off peak trips. If it costs more money during peak times than during non-peak times, the peak hour non-essential trips will be all but eliminated, thus reducing congestion on the highway. Combined with projects to improve chokepoints, this model has the potential to make the system much more efficient.

Thinking of our highways as a public utility is a dramatic shift for the American motoring public. We have had free, unrestricted access to our highways for generations. Asking people to accept that the free ride has to end is a significant challenge, as anyone involved with the US 422 tolling proposal knows all too well. If we do move towards this model, we may find that we can improve our infrastructure in areas where the demand is demonstrated by motorists, not special interest, and we may find that the cost for improvements go down by not building unnecessarily. It is a stretch, but if we do not start to re-evaluate how we use, fund, and improve our infrastructure, the conditions on the road are not likely to improve any time soon.

Shayne Trimbell is the Manager of Projects & Development with GVF. To reach Shayne by email: strimbell@gvftma.com.

Read more »

422Plus: A Better Ride

US 422 has become a constant presence in the news media, and with just cause. The corridor has been the subject of numerous studies and plans in the past ten years, all moving towards one outcome, improving the corridor by providing transportation options. In its current state, the US 422 corridor is primarily auto-dependent. It is also the fastest growing corridor in greater Philadelphia, home to many of the region’s largest employers. It is the only growing corridor that is not served by train service; transit is relegated to a handful of bus routes.

Over the past decade, a number of studies have looked at options to add train service to the corridor, manage growth, and provide funding for needed improvements. When previous studies of rail service cited costs in excess of a billion dollars for a train service, the need for a funding program became evident. During the same time, funding for transportation projects continued to shrink. Both state and federal funding was becoming more and more competitive, while construction costs continued to escalate. These factors made the reality of an improved roadway network and a modern train system seem unobtainable.

When the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission completed the US 422 Corridor Master Plan, a blueprint for growth was presented to the communities. Among the recommendations were changes to land use controls to allow a mixing of uses, encouraging communities to develop in such a way that pedestrians and bicyclists are better accommodated, and incorporating transit into the design of town centers. As part of the US 422 Master Plan, a preliminary capital project plan was outlined, with estimated costs for design and construction, and also recommended methods to fund the construction. The recommendation to evaluate tolling US 422 was viewed as both the most viable alternative, and also the most controversial.

Absent any dramatic changes in funding, tolling appeared to be a worthwhile option, one worth further study. The 422Plus project is just that, a feasibility analysis on converting US 422 to a tolled facility. The concept is to create a local authority, authorized by Berks, Chester, and Montgomery Counties to administer the collection of tolls, maintenance of the roadway, and construction of capital projects. The tolls would be collected at four locations along US 422, at a rate comparable to the PA Turnpike for a similar distance, using the money collected to fund the capital improvements. The anticipated improvements include a second bridge at Valley Forge to ultimately carry six lanes of traffic over the Schuylkill River, additional lanes from US 202 to PA 29 to alleviate morning and evening congestion, improvements to key intersections along the corridor to improve the flow of local traffic, and the restoration of rail service providing a one seat ride from Wyomissing to Center City Philadelphia via Norristown.

The plan was first presented to the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission, and has since been presented to the US 422 Corridor Coalition, the municipal officials of the corridor, many of the state legislators representing the corridor, and is planned to be presented to the residents of the corridor in early fall. The concept has had a polarizing affect, drawing supporters and detractors, both sides making valid arguments in favor of, and in opposition to the idea of tolling. What the 422Plus project represents is a local solution to a local problem. The idea of a region taking control of its transportation system and funding is new ground for Pennsylvania, and likely to draw criticism. As the project moves forward, GVF will continue to provide information to our members so that when the time comes for a decision whether this solution should advance or not, the decision is made based on facts and information rather than a visceral reaction to a misunderstood problem.

Read more »

What it Would Take for a Truly Car-Free Day

Today is International Car-Free Day, a day in which motorists are asked to leave the car at home and find another way to work. Sounds good, but it is rather impractical. The problem with asking people to leave their car at home is that it implies that most commuters have a choice of transportation options to get to work. Unfortunately, in greater Philadelphia, as with most of the United States, that is simply not the case.

In 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Interstate Defense Act, which created the Interstate Highway System. It was in that moment that we would set forth the transportation priorities of our nation. We have hardly looked back, and for the past sixty years did not see a problem with the decision. Then, in 2008, something unexpected happened, Americans drove less than the previous year. In every year since the invention of the automobile, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased, until 2008, when they declined. The decline can be attributed to a number of factors including a national recession undercutting the disposable income of the middle class, rising unemployment causing fewer people to need to commute daily, and the rise of gasoline prices to over $4.00 per gallon.

The drop in VMT could have long lasting implications on how we build our infrastructure, that is, if we allow it. Americans, for the first time in history made a collective statement that said, “I will leave the car at home.” What they did not say is “I no longer need my car.” The hard truth is that over the past sixty years we have invested heavily in and built an infrastructure that accommodates a single mode of travel: the private automobile. Who could blame us? We were enjoying a strong economy, rising disposable income, inexpensive gasoline, single family homes on half acre lots, and a federal highway program that provided seemingly endless money to build more roads. We never could imagine a day where gasoline become prohibitively expensive, our roads were congested day in and day out, and a single family home was worth less than the amount paid. Here we are, sixty years later. Gasoline is hovering near the $4.00 per gallon mark, daily congestion extends the morning and evening rush hours, our air quality is the worst it has ever been, our infrastructure is crumbling, and yet we still march forward using the plans of yesterday to build for tomorrow. How can we change this pattern? Can we truly rebuild America’s infrastructure, or will we simply repair? If we want a truly car-free day, we are going to need a dramatic change in priorities. Just as the horse and buggy made way for the automobile, the automobile will have to yield to new mobility choices.

Where does it all start? How do we begin to change sixty years of investment? It all starts locally, at least in Pennsylvania. Local land-use decisions dictate so much of what kind of infrastructure we require. The old way of doing it meant strict separation of land-uses, not allowing new construction of houses, office, and retail to be intertwined. The separation means that distance between zones can be lengthy often inaccessible by foot. Along with the separation of uses, the density of use was decreased, causing more land to be used for less people. Because of the separation, most people take their cars to travel between zones. For a car-free day to work, the separation of uses must be reconsidered and greater density must be implemented. Once municipal governments allow for communities to grow up, not out and to grow mixed, not separated, the region can rethink how these places are connected.

Just as the automobile allowed single use sprawling zones to be conveniently connected, transit is the convenient connection for dense, mixed use communities; traveling between these communities can be best accommodated with transit. Transit is most effective when connecting dense core communities, since the higher density of people creates an inherent demand for travel to other dense core communities along the transit lines. By encouraging our region’s employers to locate near transit stops, and encouraging our region’s commuters to live near transit stops, when a person needs to leave their neighborhood, their destination will be served by transit. If this sounds like an unachievable dream society, we need only look to our past, pre-automobile, to realize it works. The famous Mainline provided this type of connectivity for employees living in the suburbs yet working in the city. Many of our region’s communities were once served by trolleys, allowing for localized mobility and providing connections to the greater system. These were all in place, and used heavily until the automobile became the primary mode of transportation.

The concept of choice over mandate was the principle that founded our nation. Americans are beginning to recognize that the automobile has gone from being a choice to being a mandate. The dream of mobility and freedom is no manifested by the automobile anymore. Realigning our priorities to reflect this change will take time, and will be met with challenge. The future of mobility in America will not eliminate the automobile completely, but rather make it one option in a field of many choices. That is how we can achieve a truly car-free day.

Read more »

No Damage from the Earthquake, but is Everything OK?

On a sunny afternoon in August, the people on the east coast of the United States experienced something that many have never felt before. At 1:54PM on August 23, 2011, a magnitude 5.9 earthquake, centered in Mineral, Virginia (approximately 80 miles west of Washington, D.C.), shook the ground. Tremors were felt as far as Canada. When the ground shakes, there is always the potential for damage. Since the earthquake, engineers have been scouring the greater Philadelphia region looking for damage to structures. PennDOT responded by having inspectors evaluate the integrity of the nearly 25,000 bridges in the state.

So far, no significant damage has been reported, and bridges remain open to traffic. Just because the bridges did not sustain damage from the earthquake, it is not a time to breathe a sigh of relief. The cause for concern on PennDOT’s part is that Pennsylvania is home to more than 6,000 structurally deficient bridges. That puts PA in the number one spot nationwide for structurally deficient bridges.

What is a structurally deficient bridge? According to PennDOT, a structurally deficient bridge “means that the bridge has deterioration to one or more of its major components. Although deterioration is present, a structurally deficient bridge is safe.” It is easy to see where there is cause for concern after an earthquake. A bridge that has a deficiency in its structure is at risk of sustaining significantly more damage than a bridge that is not deficient. With more than 6,000 bridges, the potential for damage to reveal itself is great. We are lucky that so far, nothing appears to be damaged.

This sobering fact does raise an eyebrow and make one ask “what if…” as in “what if there is damage that needs to be fixed?” It is the “what if…” scenario that is the most troubling. In 2008, then Governor Ed Rendell began the Accelerated Bridge Program, which funded projects to quickly reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges in PA. The program was funded through 2010, and has since ended. The funding, although needed to repair bridges, had to be redirected from other infrastructure projects that are now delayed as a result. The program repaired 1,145 bridges. A good start, however that still leaves almost 5,000 bridges that still need to be addressed, as well as many more bridges that aren’t listed but continue to deteriorate with age. This paints a grim picture for both bridges in the state, and the mechanism to fund their repairs. We can’t continue to redirect funds from other projects solely to fix bridges.

To address this need, Governor Tom Corbett formed the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission (TFAC), which developed a plan for Pennsylvania to fund infrastructure improvement projects, including bridge reconstruction. The TFAC report was made public on August 1, 2011 and recommends many different approaches that get us to the same result, a fully funded infrastructure improvement program. How much is needed to address these structurally deficient bridges? The TFAC estimates a need of $1.29 Billion in the year 2020. If the funding recommendations are put into place, PennDOT will be able to repair and replace over 400 bridges per year. Without implementing the funding program, approximately 200 bridges per year will be addressed; a number that is not expected to keep pace with the number of bridges being added to the list.

Although no bridges came down or were closed as a result of the earthquake, it does not mean there is no cause for concern. If PennDOT is unable to properly handle the backlog of structurally deficient bridges, there is no telling what may happen if an earthquake were to happen closer to home.

Read more »

Complete Streets Bill Considered by Congress

Complete streets is a policy of rethinking how we accommodate our citizens in our transportation system. Transportation planning in the United States has been dominated by one entity: the automobile. Since 1956, when the Interstate Highway System was created, planning, designing, construction and use of our nation's roadways have centered around the automobile. After decades of this paradigm, we are awaking to the realization that we have eliminated choice in our transportation system. Roadways have become inhospitable places for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders; all are allowed to use the roadway network, but infrequently they are welcomed. Beyond the lack of choice citizens face, a fundamental flaw has been exposed in our transportation system: the risk to foreign threats as we continue to consume oil.

Complete streets, and the proposed legislation in H.R. 1780, do not remove the automobile from transportation planning. A complete streets policy will require that states must include pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users in the planning process when designing a roadway improvement project. Through changing the demands on our planners and designers we will be able to offer more choices to the system's users, often with positive benefits. Providing a safe, welcoming environment for all citizens to make the best transportation choice is paramount in a complete streets policy. For short trips, close to home or office, walking or bicycling are often the most economical choice, but current roadway design makes these choices often the most risky.

Complete streets have a wider benefit than simply offering more choice to citizens, it is an effective way to reduce congestion, limit our nation's dependence on foreign oil, improve air quality, and combat the obesity epidemic. Through proper roadway design, the costs of including safe amenities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders will be offset and paid for by the individual savings of each user. H.R. 1780 is an excellent step in addressing these concerns, however it does so with caution.

A Complete Streets Policy, as what would be required under H.R.1780, does not require that amenities are to be included indiscriminately. In places where bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited by law, typically limited access highways, amenities would not be required. In places where it has been determined that the volume of traffic and/or the volume of foot traffic is extremely low, typical in rural areas, amenities would not be required either. The intent of Complete Streets is to improve our transportation system, not add unnecessary costs to projects where the need and benefit is diminutive.

Read more »

Have you watched a 'Street Film'? [VIDEO]

Streetfilms is a non-profit transportation advocacy group dedicated to informing and educating the American people on the different modes of transportation and the trends in transportation. The approach Streetfilms takes is unique in that they present the topic at hand in a short, fun, easily understood video. The videos cover topics such as: bicycling, cars and parking, pedestrians, traffic calming, and moving beyond the automobile. Each video is short, generally less than five minutes, and incredibly informative. Their approach to presenting the information is keeping with the trends in video media and includes high quality graphics and charts, interviews with topic experts, and fun background music.

Streetfilms produces the videos with the purpose of educating people about the easy changes we can all make that will have lasting impacts on the future of our nation's transportation system. Their focus on innovative ideas such as market based parking pricing demonstrate that changes can be implemented to our transportation system that shift the decision making process from a solely automobile centered society to one that employs all modes of transportation. Their approach to the video production is intended to reach non-industry people, so the language and presentation of information is light and informative.

Making Streetfilms unique is their publication. They use the Creative Commons license, which allows for any person or agency to share, use, and distribute the videos, so long as Streetfilms is credited and the videos remain unedited. Because there is no threat to copyright infringement, Streetfilms are going viral on the internet. Streetfilms is on the cutting edge of transportation advocacy, and have successfully employed the modern methods of reaching people.

Read more »

It's About Solutions

We have a serious problem in Pennsylvania, a problem that can cripple our economy and stop growth in its tracks. Like most problems, the source of the grief is not a singular event or decision. The problem we have is right underneath us, and it is a topic that hardly gets much press; it is our infrastructure, the roads and bridges we drive on everyday. The infrastructure is old, almost all if it needs repair and some of it needs to be replaced. The problem seems pretty easy to solve, simply go out and rebuild the bridges, add a lane where traffic backs up, fill a pothole, and repave damaged roads. Easy enough, we have done it for years, and there are ample numbers of professionals that are more than qualified to perform the task. Performing the repairs is not the real problem, it is figuring out what to do about the bill when the job is done that poses a real issue.

The bill for all this work, it is expensive, many billions of dollars in Pennsylvania alone. It is a bill that must be paid, and there aren’t too many places to cut costs; at least not enough to make a noticeable difference. In our current situation, the credit cards have been maxed out, the bank account has been drained, and the state has little more than lint in their pockets. We are flat broke, but the bills keep piling up, Pennsylvania falls short almost $3.5 billion. For this reason, Governor Corbett has created a commission of transportation and financial professionals to come up with a solution to the problem. The Transportation Funding Advisory Commission, which was formed in 2011, will hear ideas from around the industry on how to address the funding gap, and not just return our infrastructure to a state of good repair, but establish an infrastructure that will carry us into the future.
Recently, US 422 has taken center stage in the discussion of infrastructure funding. A plan that was presented to the Transportation Funding Advisory Commission uses US 422 as the test case for local funding initiatives. At the center of the plan is a concept that would assess a toll on the highway to fund improvement projects. The toll money that would be collected would be restricted by law to remain on the US 422 Corridor. A plan of this nature would ensure a dedicated stream of revenue to the corridor, revenue that would not be available for projects elsewhere in the state. The project has received a significant amount of press coverage since being announced, justifiably so; this is the first project of its type in the state, and one of the first nationwide.

Tolling has a distinct advantage to funding a specific, high volume roadway, however, it does not fully address the need for funding our entire transportation system. There are still an unknown number of locally owned structurally deficient bridges and locally owned roads that need to be repaired, replaced, or expanded to handle current and future volumes. These smaller projects are equally important to address, but are much more challenging to fund. In addition to the local and low volume roads and bridges are the many state public transportation systems. Many of these systems, including SEPTA, have old and aging equipment that is vital to operating a functional service. We cannot forget or forsake them in our funding plans.

Ideas such as restructuring the fee schedule for registering and inspecting vehicles, changing the taxing structure for oil companies, charging drivers for miles driven are all concepts that have been put on the table. These ideas are only a few of the multitude that have been conceived. The Transportation Funding Advisory Commission is considering them all in hopes of identifying the ones that work best for Pennsylvania. The Commission will, upon hearing all the ideas and thoughts, make a recommendation to Governor Corbett on where to generate the much needed funding to bring our infrastructure into the 21st century. What happens after that will be determined by the state legislature and ultimately the drivers and voters in Pennsylvania.

The fact of the matter is plainly this, without a dramatic change in the way we think about how we use, design, build, maintain, and fund our infrastructure; Pennsylvania will lose its competitive edge and start to lose jobs to areas that have taken on the issue. It is uncertain how the problem will be solved, and it is likely that it will be a multi-faceted approach to the issue. Many may argue that increasing expenses on travel will not bear a positive outcome during a recession. Fortunately, there are a dedicated few that recognize that not addressing the issue will certainly have a negative outcome for the future prosperity of Pennsylvania.

Read more »

GVF Rallies for Bicycling and Walking [Video]

On May 4, Harrisburg was swarmed by bikers. These bikers were not tattooed outlaws riding loud motorcycles, but rather were clicking around in their bicycle shoes, sporting helmets and reflectors. The 3rd Annual PA Walks and Bikes Summit was held to draw attention to the needs of pedestrians statewide. PA Walks an Bikes is a statewide coalition of pedestrian and bicycle advocates including bicycle industry folks, transportation professionals, and concerned private citizens.

The Summit began with a rally on the steps of the capital rotunda. Standing in front of more than thirty bicycling advocates Republican Chair of the House Transportation Committee Rick Geist declared that “bicycling in Pennsylvania is alive and well.” Representative Bill Kortz stood and said that he is a cyclist and finds it “exhilarating.” When Representative Ron Miller spoke, he had much support for his bill, HB 170, which calls for motorists to allow a four foot safe passing buffer when passing a bicycle on the road. Miller said “if we all share the roads we can get more people bicycling.”



After the rally in the rotunda, the group moved to the Keystone Building for a discussion and information session. Jeff Peel of the Leauge of American Bicyclists presented information on programs that rank states in order of bicycle friendliness. Pennsylvania is ranked 42nd of 50, which is actually worse than in 2010 when we were ranked 40th. Peel went on to speak about the bicycle friendly community, to which Philadelphia is the only eastern PA city on the list; Philly is a bronze level.

It was evident that we have quite a ways to go to make Pennsylvania a more bicycle friendly state. With this information, the attendees left to meet with state senators and representatives. GVF met with Senator Daylin Leach of the 17th Senatorial District and Representative Tim Briggs of the 149th House District. Both were supportive of bicycle and pedestrian needs, Representative Briggs voted to pass the HB 170 from the transportation committee.

At the end of the day the message of the need to make bicycling and walking viable alternatives for Pennsylvanians was brought to the capital. The work does not end with the rally, but only begins. To see PA raise its national ranking much work has to be done. It is still difficult to include bicycle and pedestrian needs in the design of new transportation projects, and funding is always a struggle. Changing the perception that bicycling is only a recreation and not transportation is the first step. Investments in bicycling networks are much more cost effective, and much more environmentally friendly.

To promote bicycling as mode of transportation, GVF is sponsoring our third annual Bike to Work Challenge. To register visit www.gvfbiketowork.com. If you want to get involved in bicycle advocacy, visit www.pawalksandbikes.org.

Read more »

Miles Per Dollar vs. Miles Per Gallon

You hear it in every car commercial. Fantastic claims that their flashy new car gets excellent miles per gallon. It is a simple metric to calculate, take the number of gallons of fuel and divide it by the number of miles driven. Miles per gallon is a standard for measuring the efficiency of a vehicle against any other vehicle. If you are on the fence between an SUV or a sedan, the miles per gallon will be a consistent measure to clue you into the cost of driving. Miles per gallon has also become a bragging right for people with extremely efficient cars. Hybrid owners will turn their nose up in hubris as they proudly declare that they get 51 miles per gallon, then with a smug tone ask what your SUV gets.

What happens when you get your new car home? Does miles per gallon tell you how much your car is costing you? To know how expensive your commute is, or to decide whether to make a special trip for milk rather than stringing it as part of your next trip try calculating your Miles Per Dollar. Miles per dollar, much like miles per gallon is a measure that can be consistent across any vehicle, but what miles per dollar does better than miles per gallon is helps make transportation decisions. When we equate miles per gallon it assumes that we must drive, miles per dollar assumes we must travel. To calculate miles per dollar divide the total number of miles driven by the amount of money spent fueling your car. Example: If you drive 500 miles and it costs $75.00 to fill your fuel tank then your car gets 6.67 miles per dollar.

Once you are equipped with the knowledge of how expensive it is to drive, start considering alternative modes of transportation. For short trips, it will be more economical to leave the car at home and take a bicycle. For longer trips, taking SEPTA may pay off. If you can't take SEPTA or ride a bike, try carpooling.

Knowing your miles per gallon may give you something to brag about at your next cocktail party, but knowing your miles per dollar will save you money and make you a smarter traveler.

Read more »

Is $53 Billion to Much For Our Future

In 1956 President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act which created the interstate system. Ike's inspiration for the highway network came after after his 61 day journey in the United States Army Transcontinental Convoy that traveled from Washington D.C. to Gettysburg, then on to San Fransisco. The trip was a grueling journey, and later inspired President Eisenhower to begin the largest construction effort in the history of our nation. The result was the Interstate Highway System. Imagine if the convoy had used the rail system. Would Eisenhower put money into developing an interstate rail system?

Here we are, fifty-five years later deciding again whether or not to invest in and develop a network of high speed rail to connect our country in the same way the Interstate Highway System has. The problem is not a technical one, we have the engineers and technology to complete the system. The problem is a political one, we have differing opinions on the necessity. Our highway network is largely complete, and in dire need of repairs and upgrades. Congestion on many inter-urban corridors frustrates commuters, slows the movements of goods, and costs our nation in lost productivity.

President Obama has proposed a solution that will solve the problem of congestion and our dependency on oil. The National High Speed Rail Plan will reconnect cities, and offer incredible alternatives for mobility. His plan comes at a cost, $53 Billion, which is not a small figure. Compared to the $114 Billion spent on our Interstate Highway System, it doesn't seem as bad. For less than half what we spent to build highways, we can create a complementary system.

Many critics have said that this system is too costly, and that our nation can not afford to build high speed rail. What is not being discussed is the cost of inaction. The United States is the only nation in the world without a developed high speed rail system. Our reliance on oil has become our Achilles heal. While the rest of the world develops alternatives, we have been drilling deeper, only to find the wells are running dry.

Building a high speed rail network is critical for the future success of our nation. The construction will provide jobs in the present tense, it will develop opportunities for urban growth in the near future and it will bless the next generations with a mobility network that does not need to rely on a single source of fuel. Building the High Speed Rail network will carry a cost to our nation but make us stronger. Not investing in this system will not cost us much, much more.

Read more »

Changes in Transportation Funding

The new rules adopted by the United States Congress do not bode well for transportation funding. A dramatic change in how transportation funds are managed have been approved by House of Representatives; no longer are transportation funds kept in a separate lock box, but rather deposited to the general fund. The change essentially allows taxes collected from the sale of motor vehicle fuel to be used to balance the federal budget. To understand the significance of this change, it is important to understand how our highway and transportation infrastructure is funded. The federal government collects a fee in the amount of $0.184 per gallon. That rate was set in 1991, and hasn’t changes since. The taxes collected are then deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. This fund has been the sole source for federal transportation funding, and was previously separate from the general budget of the United States. The separation of funds guaranteed that the money paid by drivers at the pump was used by the Department of Transportation to build highways and transit.

In 2008 the Highway Trust Fund was drained completely of all funds. Congress acted quickly by depositing $8 Billion from the general fund into the trust fund so that projects underway and planned to begin could continue to receive funding. In 2009 the cycle repeated with the trust fund once more requiring $7 Billion in emergency funds deposited. Since then the trust fund has remained solvent. The primary reason this occurred is that Americans were driving less and driving more fuel efficient vehicles. Purchasing less fuel and paying less in taxes along with the continually rising cost of construction has made many transportation officials nervous that funding will not always be a constant.

The recent rule change is dramatic. Shifting funding for transportation projects from a dedicated fund to the appropriations committee exposes our infrastructure to the game of politics. The money paid by drivers is no longer guaranteed to be spent on the infrastructure needed to continue to support our nation’s growth. Funding levels are now subject to the game of politics, with our infrastructure being treated as bargaining chip in a political game of poker. Infrastructure will now be competing for funding against all other federal program, with the unique distinction that transportation has the ability to generate its own funds.

As our nation’s economy begins its recovery, our infrastructure is going to be crucial to providing industry the ability to move goods to market. The condition of infrastructure will be a determining factor in the growth of the new American economy. As highways and bridges continue to age, it becomes doubly important to make solid investments that benefit all Americans.

The change in house rules has weakened the confidence of transportation professionals. The certainty of continued funding is no longer certain; the likelihood of increased funding is even less probable. The change in rules is not being taken lightly by transportation officials. If one thing is certain, areas with alternative infrastructure funding programs will come out ahead. Local and state funding dedicated for transportation will buttress federal funding, and ensure that the region will continue to move forward, regardless of what Washington D.C. decides.

Read more »