A Framework to Prioritize Funding in the Next Transportation Bill

With very different environments to serve, urban centers and low-density areas, different goals, priorities and principles must be contemplated for each. A cost weighted road efficiency index should be used to allocate the federal transportation funds.

The allocation of funding between state of good repair of the existing infrastructure and new projects also needs to be prioritized. Local users’ fees should fund all maintenance. Thus, the federal government would fund only efficiency upgrades and new systems.

The distribution of funds must be rebalanced toward more implementation and fewer studies, and be based in part on completion incentives and community audits. Overall, the system needs to have a bent toward actionable projects as opposed to endless studies that yield no real life improvement.

 

How to prioritize between different environments 

Increased road efficiency should be the major benchmark. If we can convert a road to carry more persons per mile, be it by using High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) lanes, buses, bikes or walking; or more freight per mile, and this at lower cost than other options, the system capacity increases at lower cost and at lower carbon and oil footprints.

The current measure of vehicles per miles says that a bus exclusive road is less effective than a car exclusive road!  In addition, there is no index to tell us how safe or unsafe that road is for all of its users. To evaluate road efficiency a new measurement must be designed 

By using a “safe person per mile” index, one can incorporate the concept used currently for freight (tons per mile) with a safety factor which would take in account any death or injury on a road and reduce the road’s efficiency index by a weighted ratio.

Safety plays a paramount role in efficiency. If a person is hurt on the road, the road does not deliver the person to the chosen destination. As well, crashes cause backups, necessitating costly emergency vehicles, hospital and personnel, insurance and repairs. Thus a dangerous road is the opposite of efficient. Road travel must be as safe as air or train travel.

For projects that transfer passenger loads to tracks, the measure of how many autos will be taken off the road, and how much safer the passengers’ trips, will translate to increased efficiency for that road.  .

As a result, projects that show the highest expected increase and highest absolute road efficiency measured in person or tons per mile for the lowest cost should get priority. This will take in account the expected road usage and should be verified post-installation to develop a credibility index for subsequent grants.

 

How to prioritize state of good repair versus new projects

One of the challenges of the state of good repair is that one dollar spent on an inefficient and unsafe road does not make it efficient or safe.

One solution is for the Transportation Act to fund only increased efficiency projects, as opposed to purely maintenance. As a result, every dollar spent will lead to an increase in road efficiency and in road safety. This does not mean that roads will deteriorate, but that all maintenance will include upgrading to a higher standard of efficiency and safety.

For example, the Transportation Act could fund the maintenance of a bridge in an urban center if the project included a bus or HOV lane, a bike lane and a pedestrian path.

Should the localities and states simply want to resurface an existing road, they will have to get the funds elsewhere. A natural extension of this concept is that all users of a road should pay tolls to fund road maintenance.

Currently the roads benefit from massive subsidies that distort individual decisions when it comes to driving distances, and therefore encourage sprawl. At a minimum, the percentage of subsidies for road maintenance should be the same as for train tracks or airport maintenance, so there is no distortion in one’s economic choices. If anything, the distortion should be in favor of transportation modes that have lower energy and emission footprints than the individual car.

 

How to prioritize between studies and implementation

Very many improvements are small and need no studies. In many situations, the studies have become a source of funding for existing staff, or an acceptable way to delay requested improvements. 

Recently in New York City, the mayor and its transportation team decided on a number of projects as well as studies focused on the best technical way to implement the projects. In other words, the studies are not about what projects should be done (this is a political choice) but how best to do them. These types of studies are short and focused, and should be included in the full project funding.

And we should listen closely to the public. A great deal of expertise can be acquired thereby (at no cost). Pre- and post-implementation measurements should be provided, as a well as user/community survey which should be factored in the rating of the projects.

 

Appendix – Examples of projects that would qualify as increasing road efficiency

Urban centers

80% of our population lives in cities. There, road are most congested and transportation needs are growing rapidly with nowhere to go.

Services are geared towards short commutes and last mile delivery of goods with distances of less than 5 miles to 50 miles in very dense areas. Implementation costs are high for new systems that may not be feasible.

 

The goal to increase road efficiency and road safety:  one solution is to let different transportation modes share the road. Another solution is to convince car users to mass transportation is safer than driving.

All funds allocated to urban environments would require a plan be adopted to achieve Vision Zero (zero pedestrian fatalities per year) in 10 years

• Repurpose portions of roads away from cars, in favor of pedestrians, bikes and real bus lanes light rail and HOV lanes 
• Implement complete streets on every reconstructed street
• Implement pedestrian safety  measures at destination
• Repurpose car parking in favor of truck/ bus parking at destinations
• Create Park-and-Ride at trip origins
• Add electrical buses and mass transit cars as needed
• Refurbish train/bus/subway stations
• Implement Vision Zero principles on 10% of urban roadways every year (reduce speed to 20 miles per hour)

 

University and colleges should receive special funding to ensure adoption of biking as a mode of transportation. The added benefit is that this adoption may develop biking as a lifelong choice.

• Extensive and Integrated bike track network
• Abundant bike parking
• Bike share systems
• Bike parking at bus stops etc.
• Repurposing of car parking space
• Roundabouts

Low-density areas:

 

With long distances and sparsely populated and dispersed destinations, the road and individual car here is the best option to transport people. However, in small towns, at a minimum, a Vision Zero should be adopted to reduce fatalities and encourage people to walk short distances and use bikes to reach stations.   

 

• Install car and bike parking at bus stops and rails stations in the countryside
• Install bike parking at gas stations in the countryside to encourage Share-a-Ride.
• Implement Complete Streets on every reconstructed street
• Provide for bike tracks and bike parking and incentives  to purchase bikes for schools and colleges  ( see above)
• Roundabouts
• Speed bumps
• Implement vision zero principles on 10% of urban roadways every year (reduce speed to 20 miles per hour)

 

ALSO ON THE LIVABLE STREETS NETWORK

• 
  

• 
  

REFERENCES

Each source is referred to by the same number every time it is cited. Please keep citation style consistent.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

 

PICTURE REFERENCES

Pictures are cited in the order they appear above. Please keep citation style consistent.

[1]

[2]

 

FURTHER READING

• 
  
•