No, not city zoning requirements. In Madison, there are no (car) parking requirements in the downtown area. If someone wants to build an apartment building or offices with no parking, they are free to do so.
But I heard a strange story last week, and this article echoes the same problem. A woman wanted to open a store on the Capital Square, but couldn't get a business loan. Why not? Because she had no parking. She wasn't worried about it. There are parking ramps quite close, and thousands of people would pass by her store by bus, foot, or bike every day. But the bank wouldn't give her a loan. No parking, no loan.
But as soon as the city turned the outer lane of the Square into a parking lane, viola! she got her loan. Doesn't matter how the majority of her customers got the the store. Doesn't matter that people get on and off the bus yards away. Doesn't matter if 10,000 people walk by during the Farmers' Market, or bike by as they come and go during the week. No parking in front, no loan.
What this means is that walkable, bikeable, transit friendly areas of the city are being penalized for being accessible and not car-oriented. If one small store couldn't get a loan, think what the restrictions would be for a larger building! [For more on how urban, mixed-use development is being screwed by federal loan rules, see this recent Forbes article.]
Now, most developers of larger buildings will build parking anyway, regardless of how expensive it is, because they think they can't rent out their space - residential, retail, or commercial - without parking on site. But if a brave soul decided that downtown Madison already had enough parking, and more office (or retail, or residential) space was a better thing to build than parking, they would be shut out of loans.
How crazy is that?
Showing posts with label federal policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Lack of action on federal transportation bill actually benefits bike-ped projects
Not everywhere, of course, but Sheboygan County and Minneapolis, as well as Marin County, CA, and Columbia, MO, have gotten far more money than they could have every imagined. And the money just keeps coming.
Why?
Because those four communities: one rural county (Sheboygan), one suburban county (Marin), one small city (Columbia), and one large city (Minneapolis) each got $25 million in the last five-year transportation bill under the Non-Motorized Pilot Program. That's $5 million per year for the life of the SAFETEA-LU bill. The goal was to see if a massive influx of funding could change the mode share and significantly improve walking and biking.
But every time Congress fails to pass a new transportation bill, they pass a "continuing resolution", that keeps money flowing to the same programs, in the same amounts, for another chunk of time. We are now 835 days past due for a new transportation bill. Yes, over two years. That means that each of the communities listed above have had another $10 million handed to them to keep trying to change their local transportation system towards being more pedestrian and bicycle friendly!
To see how they have done, you can click around on the NMPP site, but much of the information is not up to date, and many of the changes in behavior and mode split may not be apparent for a few more years. After all, some of the trails, bridges, and other infrastructure aren't even finished yet. And educational and encouragement programs are just starting to have an effect.
For us here in Wisconsin, Sheboygan County was definitely starting the farthest back, as far as being pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. They had to start almost from zero on their planning efforts and educational programs. The other had already done some of the work, and just needed the money to make their bike-ped dreams a reality.
We often read about how great Minneapolis is for bicycling. It was rated # 1 by Bicycling Magazine, and is #2 among the top 50 largest cities in the percent of work trips by bike. [Note that Madison beats Minneapolis, and ties with Portland, OR, but is not among the top 50 largest cities.] They have worked really hard, and I don't want to take anything away from the advocates, planners, engineers, elected officials, and everyone else that is working on making Minneapolis bike-friendly. But having $35 million (and still coming) drop on you helps a lot as well!
Why?
Because those four communities: one rural county (Sheboygan), one suburban county (Marin), one small city (Columbia), and one large city (Minneapolis) each got $25 million in the last five-year transportation bill under the Non-Motorized Pilot Program. That's $5 million per year for the life of the SAFETEA-LU bill. The goal was to see if a massive influx of funding could change the mode share and significantly improve walking and biking.
But every time Congress fails to pass a new transportation bill, they pass a "continuing resolution", that keeps money flowing to the same programs, in the same amounts, for another chunk of time. We are now 835 days past due for a new transportation bill. Yes, over two years. That means that each of the communities listed above have had another $10 million handed to them to keep trying to change their local transportation system towards being more pedestrian and bicycle friendly!
To see how they have done, you can click around on the NMPP site, but much of the information is not up to date, and many of the changes in behavior and mode split may not be apparent for a few more years. After all, some of the trails, bridges, and other infrastructure aren't even finished yet. And educational and encouragement programs are just starting to have an effect.
For us here in Wisconsin, Sheboygan County was definitely starting the farthest back, as far as being pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. They had to start almost from zero on their planning efforts and educational programs. The other had already done some of the work, and just needed the money to make their bike-ped dreams a reality.
We often read about how great Minneapolis is for bicycling. It was rated # 1 by Bicycling Magazine, and is #2 among the top 50 largest cities in the percent of work trips by bike. [Note that Madison beats Minneapolis, and ties with Portland, OR, but is not among the top 50 largest cities.] They have worked really hard, and I don't want to take anything away from the advocates, planners, engineers, elected officials, and everyone else that is working on making Minneapolis bike-friendly. But having $35 million (and still coming) drop on you helps a lot as well!
Friday, August 5, 2011
Is the gas tax the next Tea Party target?
That's the question asked by this article from yesterday. There's something for everyone to hate hate in some of the comments from Grover Norquist and other anti-tax people.
Gas taxes shouldn't be used for transit or bicycle/pedestrian projects. (Despite the fact that these projects actually take pressure off many roads, and are a far cheaper way of moving people than single occupancy vehicles.)
Federal regulations require union labor, which of course is a waste of money. We can have unskilled labor with no negotiating power build our roads, bridges, and tunnels.
The states can do things much more efficiently, and can decide if they want to raise their own taxes to pay for transportation. Where to start on that one? I'm sure the Wisconsin governor and legislators will be glad to raise taxes and fees.... And of course, the interstate system is a federal highway system. There is a reason it is fairly predictable; you pretty much know what it's going to look and feel like regardless of what state you are in. That's because it has federal standards.
Note also that there is actually a teaser headline/link in the middle of the article that says the GM CEO wants to RAISE the gas tax $1.00 per gallon. I didn't click on that link, but it's sort of an interesting juxtaposition. That position is reiterated at the end of the article, where it notes that the US Chamber of Commerce also supports a hike in the gas tax.
This is all coming to a head, because the multi-year federal transportation bill - which is somewhere between $200 - $500 billion (yes, that's a B), is on what is known as a continuing resolution. It was supposed to be written, debated, argued over, and somehow passed in a year and a half ago. (You can go here to see the clock on how long overdue it is.) Since we can't just stop building, maintaining, and operating our roads, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, non-motorized trails, and every other surface transportation system, Congress keeps extending the current bill, with all it's current policies and programs by six months at a time to keep the money flowing and the system working. The most recent continuing resolution will run out at the end of September.
Cue the scary music.
Gas taxes shouldn't be used for transit or bicycle/pedestrian projects. (Despite the fact that these projects actually take pressure off many roads, and are a far cheaper way of moving people than single occupancy vehicles.)
Federal regulations require union labor, which of course is a waste of money. We can have unskilled labor with no negotiating power build our roads, bridges, and tunnels.
The states can do things much more efficiently, and can decide if they want to raise their own taxes to pay for transportation. Where to start on that one? I'm sure the Wisconsin governor and legislators will be glad to raise taxes and fees.... And of course, the interstate system is a federal highway system. There is a reason it is fairly predictable; you pretty much know what it's going to look and feel like regardless of what state you are in. That's because it has federal standards.
Note also that there is actually a teaser headline/link in the middle of the article that says the GM CEO wants to RAISE the gas tax $1.00 per gallon. I didn't click on that link, but it's sort of an interesting juxtaposition. That position is reiterated at the end of the article, where it notes that the US Chamber of Commerce also supports a hike in the gas tax.
This is all coming to a head, because the multi-year federal transportation bill - which is somewhere between $200 - $500 billion (yes, that's a B), is on what is known as a continuing resolution. It was supposed to be written, debated, argued over, and somehow passed in a year and a half ago. (You can go here to see the clock on how long overdue it is.) Since we can't just stop building, maintaining, and operating our roads, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, non-motorized trails, and every other surface transportation system, Congress keeps extending the current bill, with all it's current policies and programs by six months at a time to keep the money flowing and the system working. The most recent continuing resolution will run out at the end of September.
Cue the scary music.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Raise the federal gas tax!
If you already understand federal funding for surface transportation, please excuse some simplification in the explanation below. But if you understand transportation funding, you also understand that is too complex for a simple blog post.
Each year I attend the National Bike Summit, a conference/lobbying trip in Washington, DC to talk about bicycling with our legislators. I'm not going to bore you to death with the minutiae of transportation funding or the federal process, if you want an overview of the current legislation, you can go here. But there are a few critical points to understanding what is going on.
1. The federal government generally passes a multi-year transportation bill so that states and local governments can plan for the big projects that are funded with this pot of money. If you are going to spend $1 billion on upgrading the SE Wisconsin freeway system - including the $810 million Marquette Interchange - you don't want to be guessing what the feds are going to do year to year.
2. The current 5-6 year bill expired a year ago, and to keep the money flowing the feds have passed a series of what are known as a continuing resolutions. These basically continue the same funding programs, at the same levels, for as long as these short-term pieces of legislation last, typically 3-6 months. When the bill expired last March, no one wanted to touch the bill before the mid-term elections, so they just kicked the can down the road. (Pun intended.)
Why didn't anyone want to deal with the transportation bill before the mid-term elections?
3. The not-so-secret secret is that there's just not enough money under the current system, and no one wants to change the system. For most surface transportation (not air) the funding comes from the Highway Trust Fund, i.e. the federal gas tax. And there just isn't enough money coming in to pay for all the programs - mostly roads - that the American public wants.
(And please spare me any talk that getting rid of "frills" like Safe Routes to School, bike and pedestrian programs, or CMAQ will solve this problem. Those programs are such a tiny sliver of all the federal funding that they can't even be seen on the pie chart. It's like trying to solve the federal budget deficit by getting rid of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)
No elected official, right, left, center, or anywhere in between, wants to raise the gas tax. But the federal gas tax hasn't been changed for almost 20 years - since 1993. To make matters worse, the gas tax is based on volume, not a percentage of sales, that is, you are paying the same tax in April 2011, when gas is averaging $3.80/gal as you were in 1993, when gas was averaging $1.10/gal.
Cars are getting more fuel efficient, but people are driving way more than they were in 1993, and they are demanding bigger, smoother, faster roads, and those cost buckets, nay barges full of money. The gas tax at 18.4 cents/gal just isn't going to cut it. All those roads that we have been building for the last 55 years - since we started building the Interstate Highway System in 1956 and launched the car-based society - are falling apart. They need to be fixed, but at the same time we are all demanding that new roads be built, or current roads expanded.
There is simply no way that we can continue with this system unless the gas tax is raised. Many people, myself included, will argue that continuing to plan for a car-based system for personal travel is an insane idea for all sorts of reasons. But it has taken us decades to get into this mess, and it is not going to be solved overnight. We need a transition plan until we can build a transportation system that allows people to live their daily lives without getting in a car every day. Individuals, families, businesses, and communities are also going to have to make some changes to move away from a car-based transportation and planning mindset.
And it is going to cost money to build that system. So we need to raise the federal gas tax but also start looking at other sources of funding for mass transit, intercity rail, upgrades to freight rail, and multi-modal facilities.
Although no elected official wants to "raise taxes," because they are afraid it will stall the economy (or they won't get re-elected), we could raise the gas tax by a nickel a year for the next 10 years, and no one would notice it in the price they pay at the pump! Sure, the media would make sure everyone knows the tax is going up, but with the volatility in gas prices, the federal tax is a drop in the oil drum. Besides, gas taxes are user fees, and aren't conservatives usually all for making people pay for what they use?
So, raise the federal gas tax. Two cents a year for the next 10 years would keep things going the way they are. Five cents a year for the ten years might actually allow us to start building a transportation system with some choices for those that don't want to drive everywhere, and in addition provide a tiny disincentive to drive so much. Gas prices have jumped 20 cents in the last week, and 75 cents since January 1. Does anyone think people are going to notice a nickel a gallon?
Each year I attend the National Bike Summit, a conference/lobbying trip in Washington, DC to talk about bicycling with our legislators. I'm not going to bore you to death with the minutiae of transportation funding or the federal process, if you want an overview of the current legislation, you can go here. But there are a few critical points to understanding what is going on.
1. The federal government generally passes a multi-year transportation bill so that states and local governments can plan for the big projects that are funded with this pot of money. If you are going to spend $1 billion on upgrading the SE Wisconsin freeway system - including the $810 million Marquette Interchange - you don't want to be guessing what the feds are going to do year to year.
2. The current 5-6 year bill expired a year ago, and to keep the money flowing the feds have passed a series of what are known as a continuing resolutions. These basically continue the same funding programs, at the same levels, for as long as these short-term pieces of legislation last, typically 3-6 months. When the bill expired last March, no one wanted to touch the bill before the mid-term elections, so they just kicked the can down the road. (Pun intended.)
Why didn't anyone want to deal with the transportation bill before the mid-term elections?
3. The not-so-secret secret is that there's just not enough money under the current system, and no one wants to change the system. For most surface transportation (not air) the funding comes from the Highway Trust Fund, i.e. the federal gas tax. And there just isn't enough money coming in to pay for all the programs - mostly roads - that the American public wants.
(And please spare me any talk that getting rid of "frills" like Safe Routes to School, bike and pedestrian programs, or CMAQ will solve this problem. Those programs are such a tiny sliver of all the federal funding that they can't even be seen on the pie chart. It's like trying to solve the federal budget deficit by getting rid of funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.)
No elected official, right, left, center, or anywhere in between, wants to raise the gas tax. But the federal gas tax hasn't been changed for almost 20 years - since 1993. To make matters worse, the gas tax is based on volume, not a percentage of sales, that is, you are paying the same tax in April 2011, when gas is averaging $3.80/gal as you were in 1993, when gas was averaging $1.10/gal.
Cars are getting more fuel efficient, but people are driving way more than they were in 1993, and they are demanding bigger, smoother, faster roads, and those cost buckets, nay barges full of money. The gas tax at 18.4 cents/gal just isn't going to cut it. All those roads that we have been building for the last 55 years - since we started building the Interstate Highway System in 1956 and launched the car-based society - are falling apart. They need to be fixed, but at the same time we are all demanding that new roads be built, or current roads expanded.
There is simply no way that we can continue with this system unless the gas tax is raised. Many people, myself included, will argue that continuing to plan for a car-based system for personal travel is an insane idea for all sorts of reasons. But it has taken us decades to get into this mess, and it is not going to be solved overnight. We need a transition plan until we can build a transportation system that allows people to live their daily lives without getting in a car every day. Individuals, families, businesses, and communities are also going to have to make some changes to move away from a car-based transportation and planning mindset.
And it is going to cost money to build that system. So we need to raise the federal gas tax but also start looking at other sources of funding for mass transit, intercity rail, upgrades to freight rail, and multi-modal facilities.
Although no elected official wants to "raise taxes," because they are afraid it will stall the economy (or they won't get re-elected), we could raise the gas tax by a nickel a year for the next 10 years, and no one would notice it in the price they pay at the pump! Sure, the media would make sure everyone knows the tax is going up, but with the volatility in gas prices, the federal tax is a drop in the oil drum. Besides, gas taxes are user fees, and aren't conservatives usually all for making people pay for what they use?
So, raise the federal gas tax. Two cents a year for the next 10 years would keep things going the way they are. Five cents a year for the ten years might actually allow us to start building a transportation system with some choices for those that don't want to drive everywhere, and in addition provide a tiny disincentive to drive so much. Gas prices have jumped 20 cents in the last week, and 75 cents since January 1. Does anyone think people are going to notice a nickel a gallon?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Current Wisconsin budget bill endangers $43 million in federal transit funding for Wisconsin communities
One of the little known aspects of the current budget repair bill - SB11 - is that medium-sized cities in Wisconsin could lose all federal transit aid.
From a press release by Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) and Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber (D-Appleton):
Grisby and Schaber have offered an amendment to the bill that would save transit aids. Some communities rely on federal transit aid for 50% of their funding.
Wednesday, Feb 23 is Wisconsin Transit Lobbying Day, and we are asking that people call, email, fax, or visit their legislators to tell them how important transit is to their families, friends, workers, and communities. For more information, you can visit the Transit Now page on this issue.
From a press release by Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) and Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber (D-Appleton):
According to the Federal Transit Act, continued receipt of federal transit aid “requires the continuation of any collective bargaining rights that were in place when the employer started receiving federal funds.” Special Session Assembly/Senate Bill 11 strips away these employee rights, which will result in a loss of $46.6 million for transit systems throughout Wisconsin, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.See this memo from the non-partisan Legilative Fiscal Bureau for ore detailed informaiton.
Grisby and Schaber have offered an amendment to the bill that would save transit aids. Some communities rely on federal transit aid for 50% of their funding.
Wednesday, Feb 23 is Wisconsin Transit Lobbying Day, and we are asking that people call, email, fax, or visit their legislators to tell them how important transit is to their families, friends, workers, and communities. For more information, you can visit the Transit Now page on this issue.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Boneheaded politics means loss of rail money
Mayor Dave didn't pull any punches today when he held a press conference today in reaction to Governor-elect Scott Walker finally and definitely losing $810 million of federal investment in passenger rail service extending the Hiawatha line from Milwaukee to Madison.
The Mayor also points out that he repeatedly tried to talk to Walker, but was "met with a blank wall." Not even returning the calls from the mayor of the second largest city in the state, and the person you are likely to see frequently, since your offices are within two blocks of each other? What sort of bizarre politics is that? Is this what we can expect from our future governor: the cold shoulder and avoidance of anyone with whom he doesn't agree?
I have to agree with the harsh words of the Mayor, when he said, "the day can't come soon enough when Walker can be referred to as 'the former governor.'"
And right after the decision became final, Talgo made a definitive announcement of its own: They are leaving Milwaukee. Nice going, Walker. Not only did you lose the jobs building the rail line, but you have now turned away a business that would have manufactured trains in Milwaukee and shipped them all over the US. Manufacturing jobs in a depressed city, aren't those exactly the types of jobs we should be trying to attract?
One restaurateur has also decided that his plan to revamp and reopen his current eatery is not a good idea, now that there will be no train passengers coming and going across the street. This same decision will be repeated in other parts of Madison, around an abandoned grocery store in Watertown, and in any community that might have been along the line to the Twin Cities.
Good-bye to construction jobs, redevelopment in downtown areas, manufacturing in a depressed neighborhood in Milwaukee, and better rail lines for freight and the businesses it serves. All so communities in other states can reap those benefits. Wisconsin taxpayers aren't getting a refund on the money they have sent to Washington, DC, they are just sending the money elsewhere. And Wisconsin taxpayers will still have to pay to upgrade freight infrastructure and signaling that is mandated by the federal government. We could have paid for all this while also building the passenger service, but now it is all gone.
I am just sick to my stomach about this. Right after the election, I felt the same way, and then felt for awhile that maybe we had a chance to still make the situation right. Maybe, just maybe Walker would come to his senses and realize that he couldn't afford to throw away thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions, of additional dollars circulating in the state economy. Has he never heard of the multiplier effect?
When you are stuck in the snow on the way to Milwaukee, Chicago, or the Twin Cities, think about how the trains can get through all sorts of weather will virtually no delays. When you are creeping your way through rush hour traffic, or on your way to the Brewers on I-94, or want to get to downtown Chicago, but end up driving slower than I can bicycle, thank Scott Walker for ruining any chance to getting to those destinations more quickly and efficiently. When people who can't drive or shouldn't drive have no way to come to Madison to visit, imagine what it would be like to have the elderly, people with disabilities, or people who like to drink in our bars to have another transportation option.
The rail haters say, "What about the buses? Can't we just use those?" Sure, if you don't mind the buses moving the same speed as the rest of the traffic. See, trains get their own right of way, so they can bypass all the traffic. And buses hold maybe 50-60 people, while trains can carry hundreds. That means that to carry the same capacity, you would have to put 60-70 buses on the road and that also means 60-70 drivers for those buses, and that's expensive. Buses are just not a solution for a corridor where passengers want fast, reliable, and high capacity service.
I'm not going to write more, because what more is there to say? Maybe I'll be inspired tomorrow. I don't suppose I'll wake up tomorrow and find out this was all a bad dream, right? No, I thought not.
The Mayor also points out that he repeatedly tried to talk to Walker, but was "met with a blank wall." Not even returning the calls from the mayor of the second largest city in the state, and the person you are likely to see frequently, since your offices are within two blocks of each other? What sort of bizarre politics is that? Is this what we can expect from our future governor: the cold shoulder and avoidance of anyone with whom he doesn't agree?
I have to agree with the harsh words of the Mayor, when he said, "the day can't come soon enough when Walker can be referred to as 'the former governor.'"
And right after the decision became final, Talgo made a definitive announcement of its own: They are leaving Milwaukee. Nice going, Walker. Not only did you lose the jobs building the rail line, but you have now turned away a business that would have manufactured trains in Milwaukee and shipped them all over the US. Manufacturing jobs in a depressed city, aren't those exactly the types of jobs we should be trying to attract?
One restaurateur has also decided that his plan to revamp and reopen his current eatery is not a good idea, now that there will be no train passengers coming and going across the street. This same decision will be repeated in other parts of Madison, around an abandoned grocery store in Watertown, and in any community that might have been along the line to the Twin Cities.
Good-bye to construction jobs, redevelopment in downtown areas, manufacturing in a depressed neighborhood in Milwaukee, and better rail lines for freight and the businesses it serves. All so communities in other states can reap those benefits. Wisconsin taxpayers aren't getting a refund on the money they have sent to Washington, DC, they are just sending the money elsewhere. And Wisconsin taxpayers will still have to pay to upgrade freight infrastructure and signaling that is mandated by the federal government. We could have paid for all this while also building the passenger service, but now it is all gone.
I am just sick to my stomach about this. Right after the election, I felt the same way, and then felt for awhile that maybe we had a chance to still make the situation right. Maybe, just maybe Walker would come to his senses and realize that he couldn't afford to throw away thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions, of additional dollars circulating in the state economy. Has he never heard of the multiplier effect?
When you are stuck in the snow on the way to Milwaukee, Chicago, or the Twin Cities, think about how the trains can get through all sorts of weather will virtually no delays. When you are creeping your way through rush hour traffic, or on your way to the Brewers on I-94, or want to get to downtown Chicago, but end up driving slower than I can bicycle, thank Scott Walker for ruining any chance to getting to those destinations more quickly and efficiently. When people who can't drive or shouldn't drive have no way to come to Madison to visit, imagine what it would be like to have the elderly, people with disabilities, or people who like to drink in our bars to have another transportation option.
The rail haters say, "What about the buses? Can't we just use those?" Sure, if you don't mind the buses moving the same speed as the rest of the traffic. See, trains get their own right of way, so they can bypass all the traffic. And buses hold maybe 50-60 people, while trains can carry hundreds. That means that to carry the same capacity, you would have to put 60-70 buses on the road and that also means 60-70 drivers for those buses, and that's expensive. Buses are just not a solution for a corridor where passengers want fast, reliable, and high capacity service.
I'm not going to write more, because what more is there to say? Maybe I'll be inspired tomorrow. I don't suppose I'll wake up tomorrow and find out this was all a bad dream, right? No, I thought not.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Wisconsinites don’t want to pay anything for transportation, neither rail nor roads
While an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel indicates that Wisconsinites oppose rail, I think the results merit a little further reflection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)