Statement of Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona Public Interest Research Group (Arizona PIRG), on the transportation reauthorization bill (H.R. 7) introduced today in the U.S. House of Representatives:

“America needs serious transportation reform. While the recent Senate transportation bill failed to move the ball forward on needed transportation reform, today’s House bill takes big strides in the wrong direction. And by funding future spending with revenue from increased oil drilling that won’t materialize for several years, it is clear that the House bill is just a political stunt.

“We need a transportation system that uses less oil. You don’t accomplish that by making future transportation investment directly dependent on increased oil drilling. It’s like funding a quit-smoking program by lowering the smoking age to generate more revenue from cigarette taxes. The bill commits America to a worsening addiction to oil.

“While the drill-to-drive provision has attracted most attention, there are other disturbing details in the bill. For instance, the bill would nix the successful and forward-thinking TIGER program, eliminate entirely some funding sources for passenger rail, and prevent other pots of funding from being used for public transit. These cuts would impede 21st century transportation projects that reduce traffic, foster economic development, and provide more transportation choices for the public.

“The short-sightedness of this bill is on full display when it comes to changes to the one program that would receive a massive funding increase. The federal program for “innovative” transportation loans (TIFIA) would be expanded more than eight-fold to $1 billion annually, and much like a parallel bill passed by the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, the House would eliminate almost all the selection criteria that currently steer limited funds to the projects that deliver the best bang for the buck.  Given the backlog of private toll road projects that have applied for past TIFIA funds, coupled with new provisions in the House bill to add tolls on federal highways, the likely result would be a spate of publicly subsidized private toll roads and few TIFIA funds directed to anything else. The House bill would also eliminate a provision that currently ensures taxpayers get paid back first when private projects face bankruptcy.

“Arizona PIRG has been critical of privatized toll road deals that have failed to protect the public and will likely cost taxpayers more than public financing over the long-term. Too often these private toll road projects saddle the public with unnecessary costs while surrendering public control of our transportation infrastructure to Wall Street investors. These concerns are described in Arizona PIRG’s report, Private Roads, Public Costs: The Facts About Toll Road Privatization and How to Protect the Public. 

“Not everything in the House bill is worse than the status quo. There are some tepid moves to make states set performance goals and track the repair needs of transportation assets. If deficient bridges continue to face neglect for several years, the bill will eventually ensure slightly greater investment in states’ bridge repair programs. The bill would introduce some new performance measures, though unfortunately these are not linked to the planning process or project selection.

“The best and the worst thing about the House bill is that it is not written to ever become law. If the bill had a real funding mechanism, it would be bad transportation policy. Pretending that it will be paid for by increased drilling makes it crude political theater.”

- 30 -

Statement of Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona Public Interest Research Group (Arizona PIRG), on the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee surface transportation bill to fund all federal investment in transportation over the next five years (H.R. 3864):  

“The House Ways and Means Committee proposal to deprive transit of a dedicated funding source is a reckless move that would take America in exactly the wrong direction.

“America should be committing to reduce our dependence on oil, not reducing our commitment to more efficient, oil-saving modes of transportation. If you were to dream up legislation to maximize America’s addiction to oil, it would look pretty much like this. Make no mistake: this move would cut public transportation out of the federal budget.

“The House Ways and Means Bill stops just short of defunding America’s public transit system. Instead it says that the real money with a funding source will all go to highways, while the tooth fairy will pay for transit. For Big Oil and the highway lobby, this is a dream, but it’s a nightmare for America’s transportation future.

“Earlier this week the House Transportation committee introduced legislation to slash funding for forward-thinking transportation investment by nixing the successful TIGER program and eliminating high-speed rail entirely. These cuts would impede 21st century transportation projects that reduce traffic, foster economic development, and provide more transportation choices for the public. It promises to pay for much of the bill through increased volumes of oil drilling, even though those fees could not possibly be generated for several years.

“America needs a real transportation act. It’s sad that these bills appear to be nothing more than political posturing rather than an effort to truly move our transportation system forward.”

 - 30 -

With much fanfare and 854 days late, the U.S. House last week introduced bills to fund our nation's transportation system for the next five years. The new rules for spending $260 billion over five years would be tilted more toward highways with less going to buses, rail, biking and pedestrian trails. Given the nation's urgent need to reduce our addiction to oil, that in itself would have been a tragedy.

But later in the week tragedy turned into a dangerous farce. The House introduced additional legislation proposing that new revenue for the Transportation Fund would come through increased volumes of oil drilling and that public transit would be kicked out of the transportation fund. This breaks with three decades of public transit being supported by a small portion of the federal gas tax. The House measure would instead funnel all these funds to highways, and leave mass transit to search for new money from Congress at a time when debt reduction rules require massive cuts to the general budget.

If you were trying to make America as addicted to oil as possible, you might design legislation like this.

The agenda advanced by the House flies directly in the face of clear trends in how Americans are choosing to travel. The number of miles people drive has been trending downward since before the recession, reversing six decades of previously steady growth. According to the latest data, the number of vehicle miles driven is lower than any point since 2004. Meanwhile transit ridership has increased 9 percent since 2004, even in the face of budget-induced service cuts and fare hikes.

Even on its own self-declared terms as a "jobs bill," the House measure fails miserably. Past studies consistently show that spending on highways creates fewer jobs than the same dollars would invested in public transit, an experience further confirmed by data from the Stimulus Act.

Paying for highways through commitments to drill for more oil is both preposterous and perverse. The potential drilling revenue just doesn't add up and would be delayed for several years before the new wells and exploration could even move forward. More broadly, America needs a transportation system that uses less oil. You don't accomplish that by committing to drill more. It's akin to funding a program to reduce smoking by lowering the tobacco age limit to generate more cigarette taxes.

While the drilling proposal met knowing disapproval, the move to defund transit has ignited a firestorm of protest. Over 600 groups including the Chamber of Commerce and AARP mobilized over the course of twelve hours to denounce the move in a joint letter. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation, a former Republican legislator, declared the House legislation to be the worst transportation bill in history.

The House has dangerously breached the past precedent which has long supported public transportation; but it may also have created a Paul Revere type rally to arms for transportation advocates roused across American. Let's hope so.

Co-written with Phineas Baxandall, Senior Tax & Budget Analyst for Arizona PIRG.

A new report released today by the Arizona PIRG Education Fund demonstrates that Americans have been driving less since the middle of last decade. The report, Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy, shows that young people in particular are decreasing the amount they drive and increasing their use of transportation alternatives.

“For the first time in two generations, there has been a significant shift in how many miles Americans are driving each year,” said Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona PIRG Education Fund. “America needs to understand these trends when deciding how to focus our future transportation investments, especially when transportation dollars are so scarce.”

Transportation and the New Generation reveals that for the first time since World War II, Americans are driving less. The report showed that by 2011, the average American was driving 6 percent fewer miles per year than in 2004.

This trend away from driving is even more pronounced among young people. The average young person (age 16-34) drove 20 percent fewer miles in 2009 than the average young person in 2001. The report also notes that a growing number of young Americans do not have driver’s licenses; from 2000 to 2010, the share of 14 to 34-year-olds without a license increased from 21 percent to 26 percent.

“With one of our largest ridership groups being between the ages of 18 – 24, we have to provide them frequent and comprehensive mobility choices that support their lifestyle,” said Valley Metro CEO Steve Banta.  “The total transit network, which is many modes working in concert, will help keep our young people in the region and support our local economy.”

“I would rather have good public transportation options than the hassle and expense of driving a car,” said Nicole Barrett, a student at Arizona State University’s downtown Phoenix campus. “It’s time for our leaders to stop debating how much to spend expanding our grandparents’ transportation network and start figuring out how to build the infrastructure that my generation will need for the future.”

“The shift away from six decades of in­creasing vehicle travel to a new reality of slow-growing or even declining vehicle travel has potentially seismic implica­tions for transportation policy,” says Benjamin Davis, analyst with Frontier Group. “It calls into question the very wisdom of our current transportation investment priorities.”

“America's transportation preferences appear to be changing. Our elected officials need to make transportation decisions based on the real needs of Americans in the 21st century,” concluded Unrein.

- 30 -

From World War II until just a few years ago, the number of miles driven annually on America’s roads steadily increased. Then, at the turn of the century, something changed: Americans began driving less. By 2011, the average American was driving 6 percent fewer miles per year than in 2004.

The trend away from driving has been led by young people. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual number of vehicle-miles traveled by young people (16 to 34-year-olds) decreased from 10,300 miles to 7,900 miles per capita—a drop of 23 percent. The trend away from steady growth in driving is likely to be long-lasting—even once the economy recovers. Young people are driving less for a host of reasons—higher gas prices, new licensing laws, improvements in technology that support alternative transportation, and changes in Generation Y’s values and preferences—all factors that are likely to have an impact for years to come.

Federal and local governments have historically made massive investments in new highway capacity on the assumption that driving will continue to increase at a rapid and steady pace. The changing transportation preferences of young people—and Americans overall—throw those assumptions into doubt. The time has come for transportation policy to reflect the needs and desires of today’s Americans—not the worn-out conventional wisdom from days gone by.

America has long created transportation policy under the assumption that driving will continue to increase at a rapid and steady rate. The changing transportation preferences of young people—and Ameri­cans overall—throw that assumption into doubt. Policy-makers and the public need to be aware that America’s cur­rent transportation policy—dominated by road building—is fundamentally out-of-step with the transportation patterns and expressed preferences of growing numbers of Americans. It is time for policy-makers to consider the implication of changes in driving habits for the nation’s transportation infrastruc­ture decisions and funding practices, and consider a new vision for transportation policy that reflects the needs of 21st century America.

See the full text of the article here.

Americans are driving less for the first time since World War II, according to a new study from the Arizona PIRG Education Fund.

In 2007, Arizonans drove more than 62 billion miles. Despite an increase in the state’s population, that figure decreased by almost three billion miles in 2010, said Diane Brown, executive director with Arizona PIRG.

Higher gas prices, new licensing’s laws and improvements in public transportation, have convinced people to step away from their cars. Last year, the average American drove six miles fewer than in 2004, she said.

This trend is more prevalent in young adults. For ages 16-34, the average person drove 20 percent fewer miles in 2009, than in 2001, according to the study.

Instead, they are using public transportation.

“At the same time America’s young people are decreasing the amount they drive, they are increasing their use of public transportation,” Brown said. “From 2001 to 2009, the number of passenger miles traveled by 16-34 year olds on public transit, increased by 40 percent.”

These new findings call for new perspectives, Brown said.

“Federal and local governments have historically made massive investments in new highway capacity on the assumption that driving will continue to increase,” she said. “The changing transportation preferences of young people and Americans overall, throw those assumptions into doubt.“

A new report released today by the Arizona PIRG Education Fund highlighted the benefits of connecting Phoenix and Tucson with passenger rail. The report, Connecting Phoenix and Tucson: The Benefits of Intercity Rail in the Sun Corridor, estimates that the economic benefits of intercity rail include: expanding labor market access for businesses, creating at least 30,000 job-years of employment, boosting local economies, and ensuring that the Phoenix-Tucson area remains attractive to young people, who increasingly prefer alternatives to driving.

“As Arizona continues to grow, it is crystal clear that we need transportation options beyond freeways,” said Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona PIRG Education Fund. “Intercity rail can provide considerable benefits for Arizona’s economy and quality of life.”

Connecting Phoenix and Tucson also focuses on the significant financial benefits that intercity rail would provide for its riders. The report estimates that over 30 years, rail passengers would save $750 million by reducing the amount of money spent on the costs of operating a private vehicle. Train riders also would save approximately $150 million worth of economically productive time.

“For Arizona to be economically competitive, our state needs a transportation infrastructure that includes intercity rail,” said Unrein. “Intercity rail also will allow people commuting between our largest cities to spend their time more productively.”

“In a very short amount of time, Arizona has made significant steps to making intercity rail a dynamic reality,” said Shannon Scutari, a top transportation advisor for two Arizona governors, who spearheaded the creation of Arizona’s first State Rail Plan. “States like Utah, Colorado and New Mexico are now seeing the benefits of rail, and Arizona needs to continue moving forward if we are to be nationally and globally competitive.”

“As the epicenter of the Sun Corridor, Pinal County’s growth projections for the next 50 years are staggering.” said Pinal County Supervisor David Snider.  “We need transportation alternatives such as intercity rail to accommodate this exponential growth and break out of the sprawling development patterns that contribute to our boom and bust economy.”

“Intercity rail has been discussed for decades in Arizona, and it’s clearly an investment that would bring a lot of benefits to our state. Arizona’s leaders need to make sure that this train gets built,” said State Representative Steve Farley.

- 30 -

Over the past few decades, explosive population growth in Phoenix and Tucson has led the two cities to grow increasingly interconnected, socially and economically. It has also resulted in increasing traffic congestion problems, particularly on Interstate 10, which connects the two cities. Phoenix, Tucson, and the cities between them along I-10 compose Arizona’s “Sun Corridor”—the fastest-growing region in the state. With this growth expected to continue in years to come, Arizonans face a pressing need for improved transportation options. Passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson can help meet the future transportation needs of the Sun Corridor.

Intercity rail between Phoenix and Tucson will reduce pollution, save time, and play an important role in building and sustaining a strong economy for the region, all while giving Arizonans appealing new transportation choices.

Arizona is ready for intercity rail.

• Arizona’s population has nearly doubled over the last 25 years, straining the state’s transportation infrastructure, particularly in the fast-growing Phoenix-Tucson “Sun Corridor.”
• Arizonans are ready for new transportation options, including intercity rail. Rising gasoline prices have led Arizonans to reduce their driving and to seek out new options for getting around. Arizonans drove 1,000 miles less per capita in 2010 than they did in 2006—a drop of about 11 percent.
• The State of Arizona has studied the potential for intercity rail service between Phoenix and Tucson for more than three decades and has recently taken the first key steps to make passenger rail a reality. The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) completed Arizona’s first State Rail Plan, which includes a plan for implementing intercity passenger rail throughout the state, and the State Transportation Board unanimously accepted the plan in March 2011. One of the key steps to implementing intercity rail in Arizona is currently underway as ADOT conducts the first rail Environmental Impact Statement, which will be completed in 2014.

Intercity rail will require significant public investment, but will also deliver substantial benefits for the state’s economy and quality of life, as evidenced by other western states that have built intercity and commuter rail lines.

Economic benefits—By improving interconnectivity between Phoenix and Tucson, intercity rail will make the Sun Corridor a more attractive place for both employers and workers.

• Businesses benefit from rail investments that improve travel in the Phoenix-Tucson corridor through expanded labor market access and the benefits of “agglomeration economies”—that is, an expansion in the number of people who can easily interact with one another in a regional economy.
• Rail service will help ensure that the Phoenix-Tucson area remains attractive to young people, who increasingly prefer alternatives to driving. From 2001 to 2009, the average annual number of vehicle miles traveled by young people (16 to 34-year-olds) decreased by 23 percent nationally.
• Rail will increase mobility for seniors and people with disabilities who are unable or do not wish to make the drive between the two cities.
• Intercity rail creates more jobs during construction than highways. By investing in intercity rail, Arizona can create at least 30,000 additional job-years of employment. Those workers will then spend their wages in Arizona’s economy, and the tax revenue they provide will further offset the cost of the public investment in the rail line.
• Passenger rail would also boost local economies, including local hospitality and tourism industries, by attracting visitors with the prospect of hassle-free travel between cultural centers and sporting and other events within the Sun Corridor. It would also increase property values and spur new residential and commercial development around stations.

Benefits for train riders—Intercity rail will provide significant benefits for its riders, who will help pay for its operation through fares.

• Intercity rail riders can expect to save approximately $750 million (present value) over 30 years in reduced costs for gasoline, repairs, and other operating costs for private vehicles. In addition, the availability of rail service will provide a hedge against further spikes in gasoline prices—in a high oil price scenario, consumers could save an additional $58 million during that time period.
• Train riders will also save approximately $150 million worth of economically productive time over 30 years—both as a result of less time spent sitting in traffic and the potential to use time spent on the train working, studying, or engaging in other activities that are difficult or dangerous to perform while driving.

Benefits for drivers—Even Arizonans who rarely or never set foot on an intercity rail train will experience significant benefits from the rail line.

• Arizona drivers will save valuable, productive time by avoiding peak-period traffic congestion as a result of intercity rail.
• Even infrequent riders of intercity rail will benefit from its availability as a backup transportation option when travel on I-10 is impeded by weather, accidents or construction; when a car is suddenly and unexpectedly unavailable (for example, due to mechanical difficulty); or for special events such as sports events, concerts or festivals when parking and traffic congestion are of particular concern.

Statement of Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona Public Interest Research Group (Arizona PIRG), regarding the final Federal Transportation Bill as released today. The nation has been without a new transportation bill since the 2005 law expired in September 2009 and has been subject to nine temporary extensions.

“America’s needs new direction for the 21st century. Despite outdated transportation laws, Americans for years have been driving less and making greater use of transit and other alternatives, trends which can make America less dependent on oil and should be encouraged. Unfortunately, the legislation unveiled today is even worse than the status quo – and because the bill would extend for two full years, it forestalls future reform until July 2014.

“With America’s bridges and roads seriously neglected in past years, the bill removes already insufficient measures to ensure states “fix it first,” rather than diverting funds towards building new and wider highways while neglecting existing roads and bridges.  The weak provisions the bill includes to ensure adequate repair lack teeth and potential accountability measures could not begin until after the bill expires.

“The bill fails to increase the portion of transportation funds directed to public transit and allocates no money for high-speed rail. It reduces the tax-deductibility of commuting costs for transit riders and ends performance criteria for allocating loans.

“This bill isn’t much of a compromise. The Senate was the only chamber that had actually passed a transportation bill.  Unlike the House, the Senate bill had a few modest reform measures and strong bipartisan support. It is surprising therefore that the bill emerged from conference negotiations so much worse than the status quo.

“We do support the part of the legislation to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling, which is also included in the final package.  But we are disappointed that Congress has let this opportunity for reform slip by, saddling 21st century America with an increasingly outdated transportation system.”

 - 30 -

The one major transportation program that was significantly expanded in last week's new surface transportation bill was TIFIA, the federal loan program meant to complement other forms of financing for major transportation projects. Funding for this loan pool was increased from $122 million annually to $750 million in the first year and $1 billion in the second. But in expanding the program, Congress also transformed the program from one in which performance critieria were used to select which proposals most deserved tax dollars into a first-come-first-served pool that will no longer prioritize projects that provide the most public benefits.

In past years TIFIA has had far more applications for funds than were available, especially because of billions of dollars in eligible applications seeking to build private toll roads. Many of these applications, previously rejected because they couldn’t compete based on broader performance criteria, can now be quickly resubmitted. Newly eligible transit systems like LA’s, by contrast, must navigate new rules for public revenue sources and grouped project applications, and may wind up being too late to receive a penny. When next year’s project list is announced, TIFIA may come to stand for “Tolling Is Faster In Applications.”

There are downsides to converting TIFIA into a financing pool for the first applications that show they can generate a profit. Transportation systems are interconnected and create externalities that aren’t reflected in the bottom line of each individual project. The benefits of the FasTracks light rail system in Denver, for instance, include encouraging more efficient compact development and reducing the number of cars on the road at peak commuting hours. That added value is nowhere expressed on the ledger of its credit worthiness.  A new toll road, while generating profits, may also generate more pollution and asthma. It may leave poorer drivers who can’t pay higher tolls stranded. A new toll highway in Seattle will reportedly divert large volumes of toll-avoiding traffic onto overburdened downtown streets. The point isn’t that new toll roads are necessarily bad – they’re not – but that none of the externalized costs or benefits will be considered under the new rules.

A program that ignores externalized costs and benefits will be biased toward projects that impose their true costs on the general public. Projects that include public benefits that can’t be monetized and transferred to creditors will be at a disadvantage. It is a win for the investment banks and law firms that lobbied for these provisions, but a loss for the public interest.

Co-written with Phineas Baxandall, Arizona PIRG Senior Analyst for Tax & Budget Policy.

As the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) takes public comment on a proposed passenger rail line connecting Phoenix and Tucson, the Arizona PIRG Education Fund, a statewide consumer group, urged ADOT to continue moving forward with the rail plans and provided the agency with a set of recommendations for the rail line.

“The congestion on Interstate 10 is already intolerable, and it’s only going to get worse, so we need to look to solutions like passenger rail,” said Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona PIRG Education Fund.  “Arizona has talked about building passenger rail for decades. It’s time for Arizona’s leaders to make this train a reality.”

The Arizona PIRG Education Fund recommendations to ADOT on passenger rail included:

• Choosing a track alignment with the greatest ridership potential to maximize the value delivered by the investment.
• Selecting the right places for stations, where passengers have access to local public transit networks to complete their trip.
• Pricing passenger rail fares competitively with other modes of transportation in order to make it a reasonable transportation option.

The concept of passenger rail has strong public support in the Sun Corridor, as the collective area between Phoenix and Tucson is known. Public hearings held by ADOT on Phoenix-Tucson passenger rail in late 2011 revealed overwhelming support for a passenger train connecting Phoenix and Tucson; more than 75% of Arizonans who participated in the study said that they would prefer to travel by train than by any other mode of transportation. A recent poll conducted by Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute of Public Policy said that a majority of Arizonans said that they would be likely to use a train.

“Right now Arizonans have a key opportunity to tell ADOT how much we need passenger rail connecting Arizona’s largest cities,” said Unrein. “With the population Sun Corridor expected to more than double by 2050, the debate isn’t about whether Arizona needs to build more transportation infrastructure, but about what kind of infrastructure makes the most sense for our future.”

The public can submit comments to ADOT online through December 15, 2012. ADOT also will be attending a number of public events this fall to gather comments.

- 30 -

It’s now common knowledge that annual changes in the volume of driving no longer follow the old ways.

For sixty years, the number of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) rose steadily almost every year. Predicting more driving miles next year was a foregone conclusion, like predicting that the sun would rise or that computer chips would be faster. The only direction seemed to be up.

Then, after 2004 per-capita VMT turned downward, falling 6 percent, and leading to a decline in total VMT since 2007.

The most recent data are from July, traditionally America’s biggest month for driving. In July 2012, Americans clocked over 258 billion miles behind the wheel, a billion fewer miles than the previous July despite a slightly stronger economy and cheaper gasoline. In fact, you’d need to go back to 2002 to find a July when Americans drove fewer miles than July 2012.

There are good reasons to believe the current slowdown in driving may persist. A report by the Arizona PIRG Education Fund released in April 2012 showed that youth are leading the trend toward less driving. While the National Household Travel Survey only allows comparison of driving in 2001 and 2009, it shows that Americans aged 16 to 34 reduced their driving miles by 23 percent between those years. Meanwhile, youth are increasing their use of public transit, biking and walking faster than the general population. Changing patterns in the use of information technology and changing preferences for urban living may be major factors in these shifts.

Has America’s long increase in driving turned a corner or just taken a prolonged pause? The answer matters a lot. Consider five scenarios:

1. If the volume of annual vehicle miles travelled reverts to the average annual increases that took place between 1987 and 2005, then by 2025 the number of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will grow by more than 27 percent beyond its current 2012 amount of nearly 3 trillion annual miles.
2. If VMT changes at the average rate it has over the entire period between 1987 and 2012, then it will grow by almost 19 percent by 2025.
3. If instead VMT changes at the average rate that has prevailed since 2004, then the number of vehicle miles will fall 2.3 percent by 2025.
4. If VMT changes at the average rate that has prevailed since 2007, then VMT would fall off by almost 8 percent by 2025.
5. Far more speculatively, if the 23 percent reduction in VMT for drivers under 34 that was observed between the last two National Household Transportation Surveys (2001 and 2009) becomes the trend across all drivers, then VMT would fall by 37 percent over the 13-year period ending in 2025. 

The difference spanning these scenarios amounts to almost two trillion vehicle miles per year.

The point is not that we can be certain that driving will decline precipitious, but that we should consider these possibilities when investing in transportation.

The question of whether today’s youth will continue to drive less as they grow older is especially important because the major transportation projects we build today will be used far more by Generation X and Y than by today’s greying transportation leaders. The roads, railways and other infrastructure we build today will be with us long past 2025. The future travel habits of today’s youth should therefore be of paramount importance to transportation policy. Continuing to build new highways at the current pace might arguably make some sense if driving returns to pre-2005 rates of growth. But those outlays would be a colossal waste if more recent trends prevail.

It won’t be surprising if an upturn in the economy leads to some increase in vehicle miles, especially if gas prices don’t also surge. But it’s harder to imagine that we will switch back to the sizeable increases in driving that took place almost every year for six decades after World War II. Even if driving continues to increase at merely the rate of population growth, this would be a major change that should correspond to major changes in transportation investment. While we can’t yet see “the new normal,” it’s a good bet that it won’t be the same as the old normal.

You wouldn’t know that from the last transportation bill, which spends transportation dollars mostly that way the federal government always has.

America should invest more in public transit, biking and walking infrastructure – modes of travel that are expanding, especially among youth. Since we don’t know whether new highways make sense for the future, most road money should go to repairing the existing backlog of deficient roads and bridges. Above all, our elected leaders need to wake up and stop trying to build more of our grandparents’ transportation system. They should take a serious look at the present with an eye to the future.

This blog post was co-written with Phineas Baxandall, Senior Analyst for Tax & Budget Policy for the Arizona PIRG Education Fund. An earlier version of this blog appeared on StreetsBlog (link).

A new report by Reconnecting America highlights Flagstaff as one of 14 midsize cities in the country setting an example for the next generation of transit projects. Transit advocates celebrated the inclusion of Flagstaff’s Mountain Link bus rapid transit in the report.

“We’ve worked hard to ensure that people across northern Arizona have good access to transit,” said Jeff Meilbeck, General Manager of the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA). “It’s gratifying  to see our Mountain Link bus rapid transit receive national recognition.”

“Flagstaff has made remarkable progress in improving public transportation options in a short amount of time,” said Serena Unrein, Public Interest Advocate for the Arizona PIRG Education Fund, a group that supports increased public transit in Arizona. “Northern Arizona has shown the rest of the state how much a community can benefit when its residents vote to invest in good public transit.”

Flagstaff was the only Arizona city to be noted in the national report Midsize Cities on the Move: A Look at the Next Generation of Rapid Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and Streetcar Projects in the United States. The report explores transit in midsize cities with a focus on best practices in transit planning, funding strategies, and outcomes.

"Across the country, midsize cities are investing in transit improvements to better connect suburbs with city centers, to move people between employment centers, and to improve overall connectivity among key destinations," said Sarah Kline, Reconnecting America's policy director and co-author of the report. "These new transit investments promise to bring not only improved mobility for local residents, but can also be the catalyst for community revitalization, economic development, and improved connectivity."

The report can be downloaded at: http://reconnectingamerica.org/2012midsize.

– 30 –

Yesterday I testified in support of HB 2594, which would restore funding for the Local Transportation Assistance Fund, or LTAF, which was a vital source of funding for communities across the state to have transit programs.

In recent years, lawmakers used a number of gimmicks to close the gaps in the state budget. Unfortunately, in many instances, these "fixes" to the state's budget woes only passed the problem along to other levels of government. Among these gimmicks were fund transfers that left agencies or local governments without the money they relied upon to operate certain programs. In 2010, the LTAF monies intended for local government public transportation were swept into the state's general fund. That forced many cities and towns across the state to make the difficult decision of reducing or cutting transit services.

The loss of the LTAF funding came at an especially critical time for transit in the region. At the time this occurred, transit budgets were already stretched due to loss of sales tax revenues. A lack of existing public transportation options, coupled with our explosive strong population growth, has resulted in more traffic congestion, increased air pollution caused by cars, and ever more threats to public health and our environment.

We know that it's essential for Arizona to expand good public transportation options. More public transit will improve our quality of life, reduce traffic congestion on our roads, and help keep our air free from pollution.  It also will give those without the ability to drive (such as the elderly and people with disabilities) and those who cannot afford a car more transportation options.

We're urging lawmakers to pass HB2594 to restore LTAF funding.