Brookings: Series - Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative

Strengthening the Federal/State Partnership on Passenger Rail

Robert Puentes — Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Robert Puentes presented this testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in advance of the expiration of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, which emphasized better rail performance and demanded a commitment from Amtrak's state partners. He discussed Amtrak's performance and the partnerships between the federal government, Amtrak, and the states, highlighting the ways in which states have provided lessons the nation should build on going forward.

Downloads

Read the Testimony

Authors

Robert Puentes

State and Local Leaders Double Down on Infrastructure

Robert Puentes — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:35:00 -0400

Cautious optimism followed President Obama's FY2014 budget request to rebuild and reinvest in America's infrastructure.

The proposal highlighted infrastructure as a fundamental driver of the nation's economy and critical asset for its long-term recovery. Specifically, the request reiterates the determined proposals to create a national infrastructure bank, build-out an American high-speed rail system, invest in clean energy, modernize the air traffic control network and the electrical grid, and reinvest in state-of-good repair projects, among other things.

The president's infrastructure package has a lot of good ideas. What it does not have is a lot of money.

Undaunted, state and metropolitan leaders are coming to Washington this week with their own ambitious and creative strategies to make their infrastructure goals a reality and looking to the federal government to engage in new partnerships with government, labor, and institutional investors to accelerate the construction and deployment of new infrastructure.

In many ways, Washington is acknowledging this renaissance and moving to embrace it. Also included in the president's request are plans to cut regulatory red tape in order to prioritize projects and enable better use of public/private partnerships. These are welcome acknowledgments of the principal role state and local leaders play in selecting, financing, and building infrastructure and, given their miniscule price tag, ought to be legislative slam dunks.

Without a doubt, unfunded pension obligations and other debt burdens facing state and municipal governments limit the availability of public funds to pay for necessary infrastructure. And though interest rates remain at historically low levels, the ability of many governments to borrow from the capital markets is limited by debt caps and weak credit ratings.

So states and metros are looking beyond traditional municipal debt markets to find new lower cost, lower risk, and higher impact ways to pay for essential infrastructure projects:

Increasingly, public infrastructure investment occurs through state revolving loan funds and so-called "infrastructure banks." These institutions fund and finance a broad array of projects, ranging from local road maintenance and highway construction (e.g., Florida’s State Infrastructure Bank) to essential water infrastructure (e.g., New York’s state revolving funds) to energy efficiency (e.g., Connecticut's green bank.) While they are not for-profit institutions in the traditional banking context, they rely on principal repayments, bonds, interest and fees to, ideally, re-capitalize and replenish the fund as a perpetual source of debt financing. The model has also gained traction at the sub-state level in Chicago and in the District of Columbia.

At the same time, state officials are also working to design innovative governance and institutional tools capable of overcoming the bureaucratic and technical barriers that can slow or even derail projects. These efforts are clearing the way for new infusions of private capital and streamlined project delivery. States like Virginia, Michigan, Colorado, and Georgia have new offices designed to tackle bottlenecks in public/private partnerships, develop innovative project ideas, and protect the public interest.

To develop consistent and predictable deal flow and ensure private investors’ continued engagement with U.S. infrastructure markets, stakeholders from California, Oregon, Washington State, and British Columbia created the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange (WCX.) The WCX seeks to establish a common market for infrastructure projects on the West Coast by coordinating cross-border infrastructure investments, facilitating procurements, and creating a project clearinghouse for regional infrastructure investments. WCX aims to create a robust market for the nearly $1 trillion in infrastructure projects that the region needs to develop.

Such efforts can be replicated elsewhere around the country. One common thread to the flurry of activity is the idea that stakeholders from all levels of government and the private sector (plus bi-partisan campaigns like Building America's Future and innovative collaboratives like Living Cities) can catalyze a new field of practice, get states ready for new kinds of investment, and explicitly connect long-term economic strategies with infrastructure planning and prioritization.

Our competitors, in mature and emerging economies alike, are in the process of making these kinds of investments and, by so doing, catalyzing productive and sustainable growth. In the United States, it looks like we are finally ready to start moving.

Authors

Robert Puentes

GCI Atlanta Rountable: Atlanta from the Air

Adie Tomer — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Editor's Note: On March 20, 2013, as part of the Metro Atlanta convening of the Global Cities Initiative, Brookings helped lead a roundtable to focus on the role of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in generating economic activity, both local and global. The conversation, which included a presentation by Brookings’s Adie Tomer, senior research associate, associate fellow. and co-author of Global Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America, built on efforts underway by Mayor Kasim Reed, Invest Atlanta, the Metro Atlanta Chamber, and the Atlanta Regional Commission to fully tap the economic potential of the airport.

Adie Tomer - Global Cities Initiative Forum

View the roundtable agenda »

Authors

Adie Tomer

Expand State Partnerships for Passenger Rail

Robert Puentes and Joseph Kane — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:39:00 -0400

As passenger rail ridership grows nationwide, Amtrak and some states are engaging in innovative new partnerships to foster this demand. To comply with the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) that passed in 2008, federal and state policymakers will not only need to focus on the financial and operational performance of short-distance routes, where over 80 percent of the system’s ridership occurs, but also on the future of long-distance routes.

Of course, more federal support would help. But with additional federal funding unlikely and state budgets significantly pared, policymakers will need to consider more sustainable ways to finance the nation’s increasingly intermodal transportation network. Passenger rail, in particular, has shown the importance of states stepping up and taking action.

And several states have already seized the opportunity. Before PRIIA passed, 15 states paid at least a portion of the operating expenses for 21 different routes, affirming their commitment to passenger rail and placing them in a better position to target future spending. Oklahoma and Texas, for example, have jointly financed the Heartland Flyer and contributed more than $17 million combined from 2007 to 2011. Collectively, the 15 states have allocated almost $850 million during the same span.

Some states have also invested in rolling stock and other capital improvements that have furthered economic development along different corridors. North Carolina, for instance, has actively supported the Carolinian and Piedmont by rehabilitating stations and upgrading state-owned tracks. California has continued to invest in the Pacific Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor, and the San Joaquin, all of which rank among the 10 busiest routes nationally.

By prioritizing passenger rail, states are investing in a mode that has appealed to more travelers and strengthened the economic linkages between metro areas. But as states assume greater responsibility for passenger rail, they should be given greater flexibility in how they manage routes. While a dedicated source of funding, such as a ticket tax, would certainly help, states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) could also benefit from having the ability to transfer federal funds to support intercity passenger rail, as they currently can between highway and transit programs.

Still, even with this flexibility, Amtrak and the states will need to address both short-distance and long-distance routes. Although PRIIA requires states to operationally support short-distance routes only, long-distance routes should not be exempt from this requirement. Amtrak and the states need to carefully weigh the benefits—geographically and otherwise—that these routes provide relative to their high operating costs.

The goal here is not to eliminate these routes but to strengthen the federal-state partnership. Expanding PRIIA in this way should be seen as an opportunity to innovate and collaborate, allowing Amtrak and the states to shape the future of passenger rail in response to local demands and a clear national plan. If states feel that certain long-distance routes are not worth supporting, then they should be scaled back, as has already been debated for routes such as the Pennsylvanian. If anything, though, states should feel confident and emboldened in this task based on their ability to coordinate other cross-border infrastructure investments. States should lead with greater decisiveness and action.

Indeed, supporting passenger rail comes down to a simple choice for federal and state policymakers: In the long run, is it wiser to invest $6 million to construct one mile of a new 4-lane highway, or to spend that same $6 million to cover the operating expenses for a passenger rail route spanning 300 miles?

Authors

Robert Puentes
Joseph Kane

U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership

Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Downloads

Full report

A New Alignment: Strengthening America's Commitment to Passenger Rail

Robert Puentes, Adie Tomer and Joseph Kane — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 -0500

American passenger rail is in the midst of a renaissance. Ridership on Amtrak—the primary U.S. carrier—is now at record levels and growing fast. This research shows that the country’s 100 largest metropolitan areas are primarily behind this trend, especially ten major metros responsible for nearly two-thirds of total ridership.

Driving the connection between these metropolitan areas are short-distance corridors, or routes traveling less than 400 miles, that carry 83 percent of all Amtrak passengers. States now have formalized relationships with Amtrak to upgrade tracks, operate routes, and redevelop stations. The result is a new federalist partnership where Amtrak, the federal government, and states share responsibility for the network’s successes and failures.

This report is the first analysis to focus on metropolitan area statistics for passenger rail rather than individual stations or cities. Its findings will help policymakers and state leaders better understand the location dynamics of Amtrak: where it works well, and the areas poised to benefit from new and expanded services.

Findings:

Amtrak ridership grew by 55 percent since 1997, faster than other major travel modes, and now carries over 31 million riders annually, an all-time high.
The 100 largest metropolitan areas generate nearly 90 percent of Amtrak's ridership, especially those in the Northeast and West.
Only ten metropolitan areas are responsible for almost two-thirds of Amtrak ridership.
The short distance routes consistently dominate Amtrak ridership share and captured nearly all of Amtrak's recent growth.
Combined, Amtrak's short-distance corridors generated a positive operating balance in 2011—while corridors over 400 miles returned a negative operating balance.

Read the report » (PDF)
Follow the passenger rail conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #NextRail »
View our interactive application to see Amtrak route data for the largest 100 metro areas »

Downloads

Full report

Authors

Robert Puentes
Adie Tomer
Joseph Kane

Image Source: Jonathan Rissmeyer

New Partnerships for American Rail

Robert Puentes — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:00:00 -0500

American passenger rail is in the midst of a renaissance. Ridership grew by 55 percent since 1997 and is now at record levels, with over 31 million travelers annually. That's faster than other travel modes like aviation and far outpaces the growth in population and economic output during that time. Travel corridors like New York to Washington, Seattle to Portland, and Chicago to Milwaukee all boast higher shares of riders on rails than in the air.

Painting such a rosy picture of American rail may seem incongruous to those that like to chastise its beleaguered carrier, Amtrak, for transgressions related to food service, timeliness, and subsistence on federal subsidies. But in a new report, my colleagues Adie Tomer, Joseph Kane, and I find that Amtrak is actually finding itself well-positioned for the future. Part of this was initiated by federal lawmakers who, in 2008, gave Amtrak the kick-in-the-pants it needed by ordering the establishment of metrics and benchmarking for performance.

Smartly, federal lawmakers realized that achieving better performance—both financially and operationally—could not come without a new kind of commitment from Amtrak's partners. States now share the operating costs for short-distance rail corridors that stretch 750 miles or less from end to end. Today, these routes are Amtrak's high-performers, carrying around 85 percent of travelers.

Importantly, once they have "skin in the game," states are motivated to target investments more precisely and develop plans more comprehensively, better tailoring maintenance needs and capital improvements to local demands. Some states have already adopted such strategies and offer innovative and replicable models. North Carolina owns part of the tracks and encourages economic development along two different corridors. Virginia recently expanded service to metros lacking connections in the southwest and southeast portions of the state. Maine's Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority presents a new governance model for forging partnerships and coordinating action.

Building on this new federal-state alignment will require additional action. As the federal sequestration battle clearly illustrates, Washington isn’t putting any new money into Amtrak anytime soon. But partly because of the existing partnerships with 15 states, Amtrak has said it can weather the cuts easily enough.

So let's extend that requirement for state support to routes longer than 750 miles. After all, our research shows that the long-distance routes carried only 15 percent of the travelers in 2012 but, combined, constitute 43 percent of Amtrak's route-associated operating costs. This is not just a matter of offloading responsibility from the federal government to states. As seen in the short-distance routes that already enjoy state support, such a partnership results in a better sharing of risks and rewards.

Then, in exchange for greater responsibility from Washington, states should have added flexibility in how they allocate existing funds. For example, current federal law allows states and metro areas to transfer funds between highway and transit programs. Among other benefits, this freedom of financing greatly assists in bottom-up problem solving and gives additional consideration to alternative solutions that achieve a more balanced transportation network. States and metro areas should have the same flexibility when they support operating or capital investments for intermetropolitan passenger rail.

The goal here is to strengthen passenger rail in the United States by strengthening the federal-state partnership. While Amtrak has done a lot to remake itself in recent years, states need to reaffirm their commitment for the model to be sustainable.

Authors

Robert Puentes

Cut to Invest: Establish a 'Cut-to-Invest Commission' to Reduce Low-Priority Spending, Consolidate Duplicative Programs, and Increase High-Priority Investments

Paul Weinstein, Jr. — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

In order to locate resources for needed investments in the context of deficit reduction, the federal government should create a bipartisan “Cut-to-Invest Commission” (CIC) to identify $200 billion over 10 years in budget savings, freeing up $100 billion for high-priority investments in industrial innovation, advanced industries, clean energy, infrastructure, education, and skills-building, and $100 billion for deficit reduction.

The new commission, modeled on the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), would identify spending programs and tax provisions that provide anti-competitive transfers to particular industries and recommend an annual package of appropriate reforms—including alternative investments in growth— to the president and Congress.

To ensure the dollars saved by the CIC are used only for the new investments designated by the CIC to receive those dollars, discretionary spending would be split into three categories: security spending, non-security spending, and a new category called investment spending.

Download the paper » (PDF)
Download the press release » (PDF)

Downloads

Authors

Paul Weinstein, Jr.

Image Source: Kevin Lamarque

Strengthen Federalism: Establish a National PPP Unit to Support Bottom-Up Infrastructure Investment

Robert Puentes — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

In a time of constrained public budgets, leveraging private-sector financial resources and expertise to deliver a range of infrastructure projects has growing appeal. However, these public/private partnerships (PPPs) often entail complicated contracts that differ significantly from project to project and from place to place.

To address this problem, countries, states, and provinces around the world have created specialized institutional entities—called PPP units—to fulfill different functions such as quality control, policy formulation, and technical advice. The federal government should establish a dedicated PPP unit to tackle bottlenecks in the PPP process, protect the public interest, and provide technical assistance to states and other public entities that cannot develop the internal capacity necessary to deal with the projects themselves.

Creating a federal PPP unit would:

Provide states, cities, and metropolitan actors with the support and technical assistance needed from the procurement stage through long-term management of the projects by helping public actors determine the best Value for Money investment, assess long-term economic benefits of projects, and increase capacity to deal with contract changes over the life of the PPP

Create a more attractive, open, and robust environment that encourages private investment by creating predictability in the procurement process and demonstrating that the government actors involved want to “do business”

Serve as the first step in creating an integrated national infrastructure agenda, given that PPPs are integral to the overall capital investment and infrastructure strategy of the nation. Establishing a more uniform PPP process across all 50 U.S. states necessitates creating a broad strategy for national infrastructure development in the future

Download the paper » (PDF)
Download the press release » (PDF)

Downloads

Authors

Robert Puentes

Connecting to Opportunity: Access to Jobs via Transit in the Washington, D.C. Region

Martha Ross and Nicole Prchal Svajlenka — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:00:00 -0500

Metropolitan transportation networks are critical for a region's economic competitiveness. Public transit is a key component of the economic and social fabric of metropolitan areas. While commuting to work is only one reason residents may use a transit system, it is a dominant use: Commutes make up the largest share of transit trips nationwide.

Improving transportation connections to employment enhances the efficiency of labor markets for both workers and employers. Years of study, research and practice have tried to address the vexing logistical problems stemming from lack of access to transportation in major metropolitan areas. Today, transportation analysts increasingly consider accessibility to be a better measure of system performance than traditional mobility. It is at least as important for metropolitan residents to be able to access a range of activities, such as jobs, via the transportation system, as it is for systems to simply move vehicles faster and reduce travel times.

The effectiveness of transit depends upon its reach, frequency, and where it goes.

An analysis of the public transit systems serving the Washington, D.C. region finds that:

Nearly 90 percent of residents in the Washington, D.C. region live in neighborhoods with access to transit coverage of some kind, whether bus, Metrorail, or commuter rail.
Due to broad transit coverage and proximity to job centers, job access via transit is strongest in the District, Arlington, and Alexandria, with access rates dropping based on distance from the core.
Transit does a better job providing high-skill residents access to high-skill jobs that it does mid-skill residents to mid skill jobs and low-skill residents to low-skill jobs.
In many cases, housing costs are out of reach for low- and mid-skill workers in areas identified in this report as offering strong transit access to employment.

Download » (PDF)

Downloads

Download the paper

Authors

Martha Ross
Nicole Prchal Svajlenka

Federal Aviation Policy Must be Reformed, Updated

Adie Tomer — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Air travel has changed tremendously since the days when passengers embarked in business attire to today’s more casual “Greyhound bus in the sky” experience.

It’s also transformed our lives, revolutionizing how we do business, what food is available at our grocery store and even where we choose to vacation. And it continues to do so as our global relationships grow in importance.

Over the last 20 years international passenger traffic in and out of the United States has more than doubled, reaching 163 million passengers in 2011. That growth rate was twice as fast as domestic travel, and similarly outpaced the growth in real GDP. At a time of economic upheaval, international aviation is a net positive for the domestic economy.

Driving that growth are the country’s major international relationships. Corridors like New York-London, Los Angeles-Seoul, and Miami-Caracas dominate the travel in and out of the country -- reinforcing how the physical ties between major metropolitan aviation centers matter.

Our aviation system relies on these physical links to make the entire network go.

Domestically, since most places maintain limited international connections, gateways like New York and Seattle move an eye-popping 97 percent of all international transfer-passengers. This means metro areas like Omaha and Wichita, each with growing international passenger levels, rely exclusively on gateways to reach their global peers. And these gateways are not just connection points — they alone captured 73 percent of all international passengers starting or ending their trip in the United States.

Internationally, aviation data prove the growing influence of emerging markets. Between 2003 and 2011, travel between the United States and Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- the so-called BRIC countries -- jumped over 110 percent. Undergirding these national statistics is the growing connectivity between our markets and places like Sao Paulo, Moscow, Hyderabad, and Shanghai.

But while the influence of international aviation increases, federal policy has failed to keep up. Instead, when it comes to American commercial aviation, key hubs must battle outdated capital policies and outmoded regulations.

While most places in America have a commercial airport, the largest metropolitan areas move the vast majority of international passengers. In 2011, the 100 largest metro areas were responsible for 96 percent of the country’s international passengers.

However, federal policies and regulations stack the deck against these vital aviation centers.

Capital programs consistently deemphasize the critical role of the largest metropolitan aviation centers. The Airport Improvement Program, which outlays direct grants via passenger taxes, sends less than 40 percent of funding to those same metros generating over 90 percent of all passengers. Federal policy does allow airports to levy their own passenger tax, known as a Passenger Facility Charge, but it also caps the fee at $4.50. Federal regulations even hurt airports ability to borrow, classifying certain bonds as non-exempt from the Alternative Minimum Tax. As a consequence, the price of debt goes up.

Meanwhile, federal regulations restrict competition and complicate travel in and out of the country. Even with major deregulation in 1978, the United States still prohibits international airlines from operating domestic routes. With domestic airlines consolidating routes and leaving many communities with fewer direct flights, does it make sense to restrict carrier options for these communities?

A similar question should be asked of the many international tourists looking to visit. Why does it take so long to get a tourist visa for citizens in Brazil, India and other allies, especially considering they want to spend money on our shores?

Federal policy can do better. We can no longer deemphasize investment in our country’s busiest metro areas, especially when those same places make travel possible for all other communities. We need to recalibrate our tourist visa system and facilitate travel between our emerging friends. And we need to actively consider if protectionist policies may hurt consumers in trying to shield domestic airlines.

Aviation is no longer a luxury. Rather, it is crucial to American business and the economy. It’s time we reform our aviation policies to reflect these global realities.

Authors

Adie Tomer

Publication: The Hill

Image Source: Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

Global Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America

Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Downloads

Global Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America

Adie Tomer, Robert Puentes and Zachary Neal — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

As metropolitan economies expand their global reach through trade and investment, international aviation plays a pivotal role: the movement of people across national borders. An important set of metropolitan gateways have become a major source of international passengers and the key facilitators of cross-border travel to other global markets, making these places especially vital within aviation’s contribution to global trade.

However, current federal and local investment policies do not reflect the travel concentrations in these places, nor do current regulations help maximize international passenger levels. To support global trade across all metropolitan markets, federal and local policies must refocus their support on the key metropolitan gateways.

(To find statistics on your metropolitan area, please see our interactive feature »)

An analysis of international commercial air travel passenger levels within the United States' global aviation network reveals that:

International air travel in and out of the United States more than doubled between 1990 and 2011. The growth in international passengers during the 21-year period was more than double the growth in domestic passengers and real GDP.

Since 2003, international air travel grew between the United States and every global region, with the strongest growth coming from emerging markets. Four emerging economic regions—Middle East/North Africa, Developing Asia-Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe/Central Asia—experienced over 40 percent growth in both passengers and real GDP between 2003 and 2011. But the most passengers still moved between the United States and Western Europe or Latin America/Caribbean in 2003 and 2011.

Airports in the United States’ 100 largest metropolitan areas are responsible for 96 percent of U.S. aviation passengers traveling internationally, with travel especially concentrated in a few critical gateways. Just 17 metropolitan gateways captured 73 percent of all international passengers starting or ending their trip in the United States as well as 97 percent of all international transfer passengers. These 17 metropolitan gateways make international air travel possible for their own residents and businesses, plus for those in other United States metropolitan areas with limited international connections.

Critical groups of international metropolitan areas serve the same gateway function when connecting passengers to the United States—doubling as main launch point and transfer point for other metropolitan areas. A group of just 200 international metropolitan areas are responsible for 93 percent of all air passenger travel to and from the United States. A subset of 20 metropolitan gateways redistributes 76 percent of all international passengers requiring an international transfer point.

The routes between United States and global gateways are the most structurally important parts of the United States’ global aviation network, and corridors connecting to emerging economies are the fastest-growing. The 500 most-traveled corridors tend to involve either a United States or international gateway, and those 500 corridors capture over half of all international travel. The majority of those 500 corridors travel to developed metropolitan economies, such as London or Toronto, but the fastest-growing corridors are to emerging metropolitan economies, such as Shanghai and Sao Paulo.

Downloads

Authors

Adie Tomer
Robert Puentes
Zachary Neal

Image Source: © Fabrizio Bensch / Reuters

Promoting Infrastructure Investment through Private Activity Bonds

Robert Puentes — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0400

The federal government contributed about 25 percent of total public spending on transportation and water infrastructure over the past decade. So, for good reason, many local governments and transportation agencies are preoccupied these days with the threat of the automatic across-the-board spending cuts from Washington. Even small cuts would be painful to overstretched state and local governments already scrambling for ways to do more with less.

Increased private sector involvement in U.S. infrastructure is frequently suggested as a way to do just that, through financing tools such as private activity bonds. PABs are aimed at those projects that benefit private entities but also serve some public purpose (e.g., airport improvements, water facility upgrades).

PABs are issued by state and local governments, and many are tax-exempt for a range of qualified activities. These qualified tax-exempt bonds, however, are subject to a federally imposed cap that limits the number that can be issued in states each year, which stands at about $32 billion. In other words, since the interest income earned by buyers of many PABs is not subject to federal income taxes, bond issuers can benefit from lower interest rates and ultimately realize greater cost-savings.

As a result, PABs are quite popular. Many public-private partnerships take advantage of PABs as part of their overall finance package, and roughly $15 billion of qualified tax-exempt PABs have been issued annually in each of the past two years. Yet, despite their popularity, PABs activity fell by 13 percent in 2011.

So what happened?

As it turns out, PABs benefitted tremendously from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). While the recovery package did not establish PABs or infuse the program with extra funding, as it did with Build America Bonds (BABs), it exempted new PAB issuances from certain federal taxes for two years (2009 and 2010) and allowed the refinancing of PABs issued from 2004 to 2008.

In particular, ARRA exempted PABs from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The purpose of the AMT is to ensure that individuals and corporations pay at least a minimum amount of tax and disallows specific deductions or exemptions, including interest income earned on PABs. (Repealing the AMT, in fact, stands as one of the cornerstones of the tax plan presented by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.)

When the ARRA provisions expired, PABs became less appealing to bond buyers. Meanwhile, to continue attracting potential buyers, state and local governments had to pay higher interest rates on PABs--more than 25 basis points on average compared to other tax-exempt bonds--and bear the burden of higher infrastructure costs.

Without the AMT exemption, cash-strapped municipalities will find it harder to finance a range of projects that could be supported by PABs. For example, among new money long-term, tax-exempt PABs issued nationally in 2009, over $3.7 billion was put toward airports, docks, and wharves and $3.6 billion on sewage and water facilities. More than $14 billion went to hospitals as well. Imagine how many additional projects could be financed if the AMT exemption continued.

A major tax reform bill in 2013 could act as a vehicle for this exemption. Faced with tight budgets following the economic downturn, municipalities will continue to rely on PABs and other innovative financing strategies to move projects forward. It is imperative that policymakers facilitate this process in the long run by addressing certain regulatory barriers, such as the AMT, and by encouraging additional infrastructure investment.

Authors

Robert Puentes

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

Where the Jobs Are: Employer Access to Labor by Transit

Adie Tomer — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:00:00 -0400

The suburbanization of jobs obstructs transit’s ability to connect workers to opportunity and jobs to local labor pools.

An analysis of data from 371 transit providers in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas reveals that:

Over three-quarters of all jobs in the 100 largest metropolitan areas are in neighborhoods with transit service. Western metro areas like Los Angeles and Seattle exhibit the highest coverage rates, while rates are lowest in Southern metro areas like Atlanta and Greenville. Regardless of region, city jobs across every metro area and industry category have better access to transit than their suburban counterparts.

The typical job is accessible to only about 27 percent of its metropolitan workforce by transit in 90 minutes or less. Labor access varies considerably from a high of 64 percent in metropolitan Salt Lake City to a low of 6 percent in metropolitan Palm Bay, refl ecting differences in both transit provision, job concentration, and land use patterns. City jobs are consistently accessible to larger shares of metropolitan labor pools than suburban jobs, reinforcing cities' geographic advantage relative to transit routing.

The suburbanization of jobs obstructs transit’s ability to connect workers to opportunity and jobs to local labor pools. Fortunately, some metro areas exhibit near ubiquitous transit coverage rates and enable their jobs to access over half of their local labor pools, proving that expanded transit networks and integrated land use decisions can improve transit's utility to employers. As metro leaders continue to grapple with limited financial resources, it is critical for transit investment decisions to simultaneously address suburban coverage gaps as well as disconnected neighborhoods. Those decisions should be made in concert with actors from other public agencies and the private sector.

Downloads

Authors

Adie Tomer

Image Source: Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

Moving Forward on Public Private Partnerships: U.S. and International Experience With PPP Units

Emilia Istrate and Robert Puentes — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 09:49:00 -0500

In a time of constrained public budgets, leveraging private-sector financial resources and expertise to deliver a range of infrastructure projects has growing appeal. However, these public/private partnerships (PPPs) are often complicated contracts that differ significantly from project to project and from place to place.

In the United States, many states lack the technical capacity and expertise to consider such deals and fully protect the public interest. To address this problem, countries, states, and provinces around the world have created specialized institutional entities—called PPP units—to fulfill different functions such as quality control, policy formulation, and technical advice. This report recommends that U.S. states should:

Establish dedicated PPP units to tackle bottlenecks in the PPP process and protect the public interest
Pass legislation and change the procurement culture to a more transparent and outcomebased project selection process

Work with the federal government to address technical assistance gaps on PPPs, on an as-needed basis

The interactive maps below give an overview of transportation PPP activity at the metropolitan and state levels. To learn more, read the full report.

Metro-Level
State-Level

To view an interactive version of this map, please download Adobe Flash Player version 9.0 and a browser with javascript enabled.

Metro Level PPP Transportation Projects in the Top 100 Metro Areas

To view an interactive version of this map, please download Adobe Flash Player version 9.0 and a browser with javascript enabled.

State Level PPP Transportation Projects in the Top 100 Metro Areas

Downloads

Download the Full Paper

Authors

Image Source: © Jeff Haynes / Reuters

Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households

Robert Puentes and Adie Tomer — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Millions of zero-vehicle households live in areas well served by transit. Yet hundreds of thousands of zero-vehicle households live out of transit’s reach, particularly in the South and in the suburbs. And those with transit access still cannot reach a majority of jobs in metro areas within 90 minutes. Based on these trends, leaders must recognize these households’ unique mobility needs and aim to improve job accessibility through sound policy.

Find statistics on zero-vehicle households in your metropolitan area »

Read the analysis on metropolitan transit accessibility to jobs »

View our interactive map to learn more about transit access in your area »

To view this page, you must have both JavaScript enabled and version 8 of the Adobe Flash Player installed. Download the Flash Player

Transit Access and Zero Vehicle Households

An analysis of data from the American Community Survey and 371 transit providers in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas reveals that:

In the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, 7.5 million households do not have access to a private automobile. A majority of these zero-vehicle households live in cities and earn lower incomes. Conversely, households with vehicles tend to live in suburbs and earn middle or higher incomes. The unique locational and income characteristics of zero-vehicle households reinforce their need for strong transit service.

Over 90 percent of zero-vehicle households in large metropolitan areas live in neighborhoods with access to transit service of some kind. This greatly exceeds the 68 percent coverage rate for households with a vehicle, suggesting transit service aligns with households who rely on it most. However, some 700,000 zero-vehicle households in the 100 largest metro areas lack access to transit.

The typical metropolitan household without a vehicle can reach over 40 percent of metro-wide jobs via transit within 90 minutes, exceeding the 29 percent transit access share for households with a vehicle. The tendency of zero-vehicle households to live in cities contributes to their above-average access to jobs via transit. Unfortunately, limited job access via transit in most metropolitan areas leaves many jobs out of reach for zero-vehicle households.

Downloads

Authors

How the U.S. Can Improve Transportation Policy

Robert Puentes — Mon, 23 May 2011 13:21:00 -0400

America needs to start directing traffic.

The public sector spends north of $170 billion each year on transportation, and we'll need to spend even more to modernize our battered infrastructure.

But before we start writing more checks, we need to stop and think long and hard about transportation. Not only are we spending too little right now, but we're also not spending it wisely.

The nation lacks a clear-cut vision for transportation, and no way to target spending to make sure all those billions of dollars help achieve our economic and environmental goals. That means we have a lot of bridges to nowhere, with nobody making sure that these big investments generate enough returns to be worthwhile, or that they address any number of the large, thorny problems that are crucial to the well-being of the nation.

For instance, we do a great job of building new roads—since 2000, we've added enough new lane miles to circle the globe four times. Yet border crossings, crucial to our nation's exports, are chronically congested, and there's no concerted effort to help unblock them. Meanwhile, at the government's urging, companies are gearing up to produce large numbers of electric cars, but there is no assurance that drivers will have anywhere close to enough places to recharge them.

We can't afford to do this anymore, with the economy struggling and the nation trying to achieve a host of conflicting priorities. We want to be energy independent and go green. But we also want to boost exports, which means putting more trucks on the road to chug fuel and cough out carbon. We want the mobility that comes from cars and planes. But we also want to reduce the amount of energy expended when we travel.

Clearly, we need a new approach. Transportation needs to be put squarely in the service of the American economy. We must coordinate the efforts of the public and private sectors to make it easier to move freight, find ways to cut carbon emissions, integrate new technologies into daily commutes and connect workers to jobs that are far from their homes.

The big question, of course, is how much it will all cost. And that's tough to answer right now. We have a lot of ideas for the types of new investments we want. But little attention is given to figuring out what may not be needed if we can find smarter alternatives, such as rerouting flights instead of building new airports.

With that in mind, here's a look at the national goals we want to achieve—and how transportation policy can—no, must—be rethought to achieve them.

Boosting Exports
The country needs to become more export-oriented for the future health of the economy. But right now there's no way to make sure that the nation's ports, border crossings and roadways are set up to accomplish that goal.

For one thing, there's far too little attention paid to making sure that traffic at border crossings moves swiftly. Our crossings into Mexico and Canada are routinely clogged, interrupting the flow of trade.

Consider the challenges facing Detroit—part of the largest binational trading corridor on the planet, linking the U.S. and Canadian auto industries and other sectors with highly integrated, transport-dependent, "just in time" supply chains and their smaller, more frequent shipments. Canada is our nation's largest trading partner, and Detroit's Ambassador Bridge is the No. 1 border point for commerce between the two countries.

It's a crucial corridor—but there are relatively few border crossings because of the Great Lakes. So traffic piles up at bridges and tunnels, with freight competing with passenger cars to get through tightened security checkpoints. Trucks also clog the roads of Detroit as they shuttle freight between ports and large distribution centers and warehouses.

The export problem isn't just a matter of insufficient infrastructure. States and cities routinely compete against one another for shipping activity instead of coming up with joint efforts that might benefit all the terminals in the region. Without an overall strategy, there's a duplication of efforts and a duplication of subsidies that hurts the economy, given scarce resources.

Collaboration is needed—between the federal government, states, metro areas, freight industry and shippers. We need to come up with a comprehensive plan that identifies the best ways to help the flow of freight.

The plan might identify the most important corridors for freight, for instance, and then target investments to improve safety, relieve bottlenecks and provide better access to ports. That might mean new roads leading to ports or, in some instances, truck-only lanes on existing roads.

Similarly, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico should also come together to study infrastructure needs at the land borders and along the corridors that link the two borders together.

For now, some states are coming up with innovative solutions on their own—solutions that could and should become widespread under a national transportation policy.

Back in Detroit, for instance, the national governments of the U.S. and Canada, along with lawmakers in Michigan and Ontario, are trying to build a new bridge across the Detroit River to help keep trade flowing—a plan that's awaiting final legislative approval. Meanwhile, the World Trade Bridge in Laredo, Texas, has introduced tags for electronic toll collection to speed traffic and reduce wait times.

Then, of course, there's the issue of competition between ports for shipping business. One way to ease that problem: Tell states their ports won't get any federal aid unless they work with their neighbors to boost business in the whole region.

And those agreements need to be carefully structured and policed to make sure they don't collapse—which happens all too easily. Consider the current mess involving Jasper Ocean Terminal on the Savannah River, the border between South Carolina and Georgia. In 2007, the two states agreed to develop the terminal together, and create a special entity to own and operate it.

That's good. But what came later wasn't. After the governors who signed the deal left office, the terminal became a point of contention between the states. What happened? Georgia decided it wanted to deepen another one of its own harbors, a move that South Carolina sees as a challenge to its own facilities. So, South Carolina has stopped funding the Jasper facility unless the Georgia dredging plan is scrapped. Now, I ask you: How does any of this help get us closer to our national goals?

Getting Greener
Transportation for the next U.S. economy also needs to be low carbon—to boost air quality, give us greater energy security and unleash entrepreneurial activity around green technology. Yet the U.S. has been slow to address the problem—again, in large part, because there's no guiding authority making sure all of the players talk to each other and don't work at cross purposes.

Take electric cars. The Obama administration's goal to put one million electric vehicles on the road by the year 2015 is exactly the kind of ambitious, far-reaching goal we need at this moment. But where are drivers supposed to charge them? There are only about 1,000 public charging stations around the U.S. today. While the number is increasing, drivers aren't going to feel comfortable investing in a pricey new vehicle unless they're certain they can keep it powered up no matter where they go.

There are so few charging stations because the auto industry never got together with the government and came up with standards for them. There's no agreement about what they ought to look like or how they should operate.

The public and private sector need to come together on this issue. One spur to help them: the administration's proposal, currently working its way through Congress, to reward communities that invest in electric vehicles and infrastructure through a $200 million grant program.

Another flaw that keeps us from going greener: The rules governing transportation policy continue to favor roads over transit and other alternatives to traditional highway building.

Projects using highway dollars are subject to perfunctory review and enjoy a federal funding contribution of 80% or 90% of the project's cost. Transit projects, in contrast, are subject to a rigorous bureaucratic process and a federal contribution of less than half of the project cost. So, cities have a tendency to favor building new roads over mass transit—which means more pollution and often poor solutions to current economic and social problems.

We need equal treatment of all possible transportation projects, so cities don't have to give up on, say, transit systems that fit their needs and help us go green, just because they cost more than highways.

Adding Innovations
We have tremendous technology available that could help make transportation smoother and more efficient. Traffic signals that are centrally controlled by computer can optimize the flow of traffic. Electronic toll-collection tags let drivers pay without stopping. Changeable signs can provide information about the next bus or train, or rough traffic conditions ahead. Freeway-management centers are able to spot roadway incidents, dispatch service vehicles to clear accidents and get traffic moving again.

These technologies can help address myriad problems. For one, there's congestion, which is estimated to cost the U.S. nearly $200 billion annually in lost productivity and environmental impact. For another, better information about bad weather and traffic can help drivers avoid crashes and mitigate the $230 billion annual economic impact that comes from accidents. There are also indirect economic benefits to going high-tech—like spurring growth among companies that design and produce the electronic gear.

Yet the deployment of this smart technology in our roadways and transit systems is lagging. Only one-third of metropolitan buses are electronically monitored in real time, for example, and less than 1% of bus stops are equipped with electronic displays of traveler information for the public.

Part of the reason is that there's no incentive for cities to deploy these innovations, since transportation dollars aren't distributed based on performance. You don't get bonus money for having fewer accidents or delays on your roadways, or giving your commuters better information about delays.

To be sure, transportation agencies are feeling their own budgetary pressures and fiscal challenges, but these technological fixes are relatively inexpensive. Ironically, they are often cut in shortsighted attempts to save money.

We need to change the system to reward innovation and efficiency, and have a public-private partnership to get this kind of technology deployed across the country. In a sense, we just need to encourage more of what's already going on in some places. Already, public entities buy technology from private companies and put it in the field. And public entities share their data with companies to develop new technologies, such as systems that track buses on their routes. Give municipalities ample rewards for getting efficient, such as grants and tax breaks, and this back-and-forth will happen naturally.

One effort under way at the federal level could help these technologies along. The U.S. Transportation Department is working with public and private entities to come up with tools and metrics needed to deploy wireless technologies in cars and on roadways. The goal is to help on things like crash avoidance or sending drivers information about congestion to help avoid delays.

Connecting Workers With Work
Finally, we have to make it easier for people to get to their jobs. Lower-income households depend more on transit than other households to access labor-market opportunity, due to the high costs of car ownership. Transit does a good job of getting into low-income neighborhoods, but it doesn't do so well connecting those riders to jobs, particularly lower-skilled jobs.

In some metro areas, inner-city workers are cut off from suburban labor-market opportunities. In others, low-income suburban residents spend large shares of their income on owning and operating a car. Only about one-quarter of jobs in low- and middle-skill industries are accessible via public transit within 90 minutes for the typical metropolitan commuter, compared with one-third of jobs in high-skill industries. In Los Angeles, for example, 99% of low-income neighborhoods are served by transit. However, the typical resident can get to only 36% of jobs by transit.

We need to give those lower-skilled workers more mobility and access to opportunity—which means more transportation choices. Governments need to think differently about the problem, to look at where jobs and workers are and figure out creative ways to bring them together.

For an idea of the way ahead, consider Los Angeles. Under a far-reaching plan by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the city will add and extend bus lines and create corridors to connect residential and commercial areas. The Westside Subway Extension will also include a station at Century City, one of the largest employment centers in the county.

Congress could help on projects like this by working with states to speed up approvals. For example, states with very strong environmental review and planning processes—such as California—should be able to waive steps such as the draft environmental impact statement that the federal government requires.

Another important step would be a national infrastructure bank. A quasipublic entity like the Tennessee Valley Authority or Amtrak, the bank would make loans to fund transportation projects that were important to the nation as a whole. It would have to not only further policy goals—as a federal agency would—but also demand from project sponsors the same assurances and rate of return that a bank would.

It is not a silver bullet, but if designed and implemented appropriately, it would be a targeted mechanism to make critical new investments on a merit basis, while adhering to market forces and leveraging the private capital we know is ready to invest here in the U.S.

The stakes are too high—for economic recovery and fiscal responsibility—to allow spending that does not result in real returns and put us on the path to long-term prosperity. But even in this moment of fiscal austerity and restraint, we need a playbook that stimulates job creation, takes advantage of private-sector entrepreneurship and financing, and puts us on a path to the Next American Economy. Transportation is a fundamental part of that.

Authors

Robert Puentes

Publication: Wall Street Journal

Missed Opportunity: Robert Puentes' Remarks on Connecting Transit and Jobs

Robert Puentes — Thu, 12 May 2011 14:25:00 -0400

During an event on May 12 to launch a new report on transit accessibility to jobs in metropolitan areas, Robert Puentes presented an overview of the findings and urged regional leaders to consider the economic opportunities that adequate transportation can bring.

We believe we may have a public transit moment before us in the U.S. today.

From major metropolitan systems with iconic transit like New York and Washington …. To new light rail lines … like those that just opened up in Charlotte and Phoenix…. To growing bus networks in Colorado Springs and Albuquerque ….. Even the ferry boats that traverse the Puget Sound and Boston Harbor ….

Public transit is a critical part of the economic and social fabric of these as well as other metropolitan areas.

Every year, over 10 billion trips are taken using public transit. A number that has generally been trending up in recent years. Almost all of these trips occur in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas. These places are the real heart of the American economy—and harbor two-thirds of our population, generate 75 percent of our gross domestic product, and account for over 95 percent of all transit passenger miles traveled. Every single one of the 100 largest metros has some form of public transit.

Education, shopping, health care, and recreation: These are some of the reasons why people take transit in metropolitan America. But one of the most important is to get to work.

While three out of four commutes still occur alone in a car, recent statistics show that the share of Americans getting to work by transit grew during the last decade for the first time in a generation.

Despite the recent leveling off due to the recession we do consider this to be a moment for public transit in America. There are several driving forces:

First is the emerging disruption of escalating gas prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration—along with most Americans—is already looking out for $4 gas (if they’re not seeing it already). These rising fuel prices will drive increased demand for transit as commuters seek to reduce their travel costs.

But whether commuters will shift to transit is the result of many things … including whether or not transit is even available and whether it gets people where they want to go. More on that in a minute.

Transit will also benefit from the fact that we are a growing nation. By 2050, we could grow—incredibly—by another 130 million people. That’s more than the entire population that today lives west of the Mississippi River. What is more is that three-quarters of this growth will occur in metropolitan areas.

Another driving force is the imperative of lower carbon. Today in the U.S., transportation is the single largest contributor to the nation's carbon footprint. And even small increases in driving will still spew out more and more carbon—potentially wiping out the benefits gained from more fuel efficient cars and the expansion of cleaner fuel alternatives.

So given these forces the natural question is: Are we ready for this public transit moment? How well does transit cover our metropolitan areas? How well does transit connect metropolitan workers to jobs? And how well does transit function for those workers who may need it most?

Our challenge is that, when it comes to answering these questions, strikingly little is known. In the U.S. today, we have no consistent transit information across and between metropolitan areas.

So to better understand these issues, we analyzed, collected, and—in some cases—built geospatial data for 371 systems that provide transit service in the nation’s 100 largest metros. As you can imagine, the data collection was the hard part.

In some cases, the data were easy to find—such as the information that goes in to web-based transit routing tools which many of the nation’s largest transit systems already use. In other cases (like when we got this information on paper) we had to create digital route and schedule information from scratch. The comprehensive database that results provides the first comparable, detailed look at the relationship between transit service, income, and the location of employment.

Let’s see how this all plays out in Denver—a metro area with a robust network of transit routes that largely mirror the street grid. A worker living in Littleton, a southern suburb, could walk to the new light rail line a few blocks from their home and ride it all the way to work near 16th and California in downtown Denver. There are no transfers required and the whole trip takes 34 minutes. To get to a job in the eastern suburb of Stapleton, that commuter would continue on the train, then transfer to a bus. That whole trip takes 85 minutes.

Our model simulated literally billions of similar commute trips for every neighborhood with transit service in the 100 largest metro areas.

So, what did we find?

First is that nationally we face a transit paradox between transit coverage and job access;
Second, is that by virtue of policy, the market, and a little luck there is clear variation between metro areas; and
Third, we need a new game plan for helping Americans get to work.

Transit and Jobs: Better Than You Thought and Worse Than You Hoped

Alan Berube — Thu, 12 May 2011 11:04:00 -0400

Last fall, I left my rather antiquated PDA behind and finally joined the ranks of iPhone users (thank you, Brookings). An iPhone 4, no less.

A lot about it was better than I ever imagined. Text messages in alternating color bubbles? Take a video and upload it straight to YouTube? Actually see HTML content in my emails? Are you kidding me??

But it’s not called an iEverything. It’s an iPhone. And so it’s rather ironic--but not surprising to the initiated (and the haters)--that the phone part is not exactly the device’s strong suit. (I joined before the whole Verizon thing, so that could have something to do with it.) Dropped calls are a not-infrequent fact of life now. And then there’s the whole typing thing … I’m getting used to it, but I do have to write emails a LOT more than, say, use Urbanspoon.

I thought about all this as we were getting ready to unveil our new report today on transit and jobs in metropolitan America. My colleagues spent two years putting together a database of public transit systems--371 in total--that operate in the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. We examined who in these metro areas has access to transit, and how many jobs you can reach via that transit in a reasonable amount of time.

On one hand, transit covers more people than I thought it did. Fully seven in 10 working-age people in metro areas live within three-quarters of a mile of a transit stop. Despite massive suburbanization of the U.S. population in recent decades, transit is well within reach of most large-metro commuters. That was as pleasantly surprising as finding the app that allowed me to live-stream “This American Life” direct from WBEZ.

At the same time, we shouldn’t celebrate transit for transit’s sake. Great, you’ve got a bus that goes through your neighborhood--where does it take you? How long does it take to get there? In particular, can it get you to your job … or the job that you want to have? That’s hardly the only reason people use transit, but it’s arguably the most important for the economic health of metro areas.

And this is where the letdown occurs. We found that even if you give the typical metropolitan commuter a very generous 90 minutes to ride transit in one direction, she could reach less than one-third of the total jobs in her metro area. If you’re a less-skilled service worker--the type of person who might rely on transit--you can reach an even lower share of metropolitan jobs in the industries most likely to employ you. Whoops, dropped call.

Like everything else in metro America, of course, there’s a lot of variation. If you’re in Chattanooga, for example, there a less than one-in-four chance that there’s any transit near you. If you’re in Honolulu, though, there’s probably a bus outside your front door. Right now.

What that variation in metro experience—and the overall results—indicate is that this is about more than transit. You can have lots of transit, and still fail to reach a lot of regional jobs within a reasonable amount of time (Chicago, we’re looking in your direction). Conversely, you can have modest, unsexy transit and deliver workers from their homes to a majority of regional job centers efficiently (hello, Tucson).

Transit simply must be part of a successful 21^st century metropolitan economy, given rising energy prices, population growth, and the imperative to engage more people in the labor market whether or not they own a car. We simply can’t allow draconian state and local budget cuts to permanently rip the wires out of these systems. But transit can and should do much more to promote access to jobs. In part, that means coordinating much more closely between transportation, housing, and economic development planning. We talked about how to do that at today’s event with representatives from metro areas across the country, as well as Transportation Secretary LaHood and HUD Secretary Donovan.

Bottom line--transit can’t be all flashy apps and high design (Take light rail to the ballpark! Live in a condo above a streetcar!). In an era of constrained fiscal and natural resources, we need to focus on how transit can best contribute to economic growth. Simply, it’s about jobs. Or as my big thumbs might type on that little screen, “oy’d snpiy kpnd.” Still working on it.

Authors

Alan Berube

Publication: The Avenue, The New Republic

Brookings: Series - Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative

Strengthening the Federal/State Partnership on Passenger Rail

Downloads

Authors

State and Local Leaders Double Down on Infrastructure

Authors

GCI Atlanta Rountable: Atlanta from the Air

Authors

Expand State Partnerships for Passenger Rail

Authors

U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership

Downloads

A New Alignment: Strengthening America's Commitment to Passenger Rail

Downloads

Authors

New Partnerships for American Rail

Authors

Cut to Invest: Establish a 'Cut-to-Invest Commission' to Reduce Low-Priority Spending, Consolidate Duplicative Programs, and Increase High-Priority Investments

Downloads

Authors

Strengthen Federalism: Establish a National PPP Unit to Support Bottom-Up Infrastructure Investment

Downloads

Authors

Connecting to Opportunity: Access to Jobs via Transit in the Washington, D.C. Region

Downloads

Authors

Federal Aviation Policy Must be Reformed, Updated

Authors

Global Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America

Downloads

Global Gateways: International Aviation in Metropolitan America

Downloads

Authors

Promoting Infrastructure Investment through Private Activity Bonds

Authors

Where the Jobs Are: Employer Access to Labor by Transit

Downloads

Authors

Moving Forward on Public Private Partnerships: U.S. and International Experience With PPP Units

Downloads

Authors

Transit Access and Zero-Vehicle Households

Downloads

Authors

How the U.S. Can Improve Transportation Policy

Authors

Missed Opportunity: Robert Puentes' Remarks on Connecting Transit and Jobs

Downloads

Audio

Authors

Transit and Jobs: Better Than You Thought and Worse Than You Hoped

Authors