A proposed City Council bill would let civilians report cars illegally and unsafely parked in crosswalks and bike lanes and then collect 25 percent of the resulting ticket fees. The bill has advocates and urbanists buzzing, but it’s a bad idea, says this opinion writer. All opinions are those of the writer. Streetsblog advocates for a broad discussion of the issues, even if our editorial board takes a different position.

We all want a livable city, but if we’re going to make a livable city worth living in, we are going to need more solidarity, not less.

Intro 501, introduced by Council Member Lincoln Restler (D-Williamsburg), is intuitively appealing: it promises beleaguered pedestrians and cyclists the opportunity take enforcement matters into their own hands.

And the need for action is evident, as New York’s streets grow increasingly dangerous for these groups. Through Nov. 22 this year, there have been 82,303 reported crashes in New York City — roughly 252 every single day. Those crashes have injured 4,227 cyclists and 7,060 pedestrians, killing 12 bike riders and 91 walkers.

As for proof of concept, Restler’s approach is based on the Citizens Air Complaint Program, also known as the “Billy Never Idles” program, which allows residents to collect a portion of any ticket issued to an idling truck they report. 

But I believe that turning citizens against one another, even in the name of pedestrian safety, is a terrible mistake.

For one thing, setting neighbors against one another creates the conditions for direct conflict: As one idling program participant told CNBC earlier this year, “[E]very time I go out of my house, I am prepared for an assault.”

But beyond any individual confrontation is the risk these laws pose to greater social cohesion. American society is already fractious enough: interpersonal trust is sharply deteriorating as real-world social networks decline, and rising distrust in our institutions and media make consensus increasingly challenging. Bills like Intro 501 further the trend toward mutual mistrust, hardening existing us-versus-them dynamics in our shared public spaces by creating a narc economy with serious financial incentives and penalties.

Proposals like Intro 501 turn the “eyes on the street” concept, popularized by New York City urbanist Jane Jacobs, on its head. Jacobs envisioned mutual protection from urban crime through a deterrence system derived from social cohesion and lively, busy streets, but Intro 501 conceptualizes the city as a space of enmity and rivalry; a formalized panopticon of citizen surveillance conducted by other citizens.

A cautionary tale comes from South Korea, where this type of citizen-led surveillance has a longer history and is used to police a wide array of infractions. A 2011 New York Times article on the practice paints a grim picture of the resulting tensions. For lack of better-paying alternatives, many individuals “roam cities secretly videotaping fellow citizens,” and some derive their incomes exclusively from citizen-surveillance programs. “Some people hate us,” one of these men told the Times. “But we’re only doing what the law encourages.”

Deputizing citizens to address traffic violations also implicates the many ethical issues attendant to privatized and citizen-led law enforcement. America has a long history of errant and racially biased community policing, from the breathless paranoia displayed on apps like NextDoor to the sometimes-deadly overreach of Neighborhood Watch programs. Given these biases, it is likely that Intro 501 would disparately affect already marginalized New Yorkers through differential reporting rates.

Despite the foregoing risks of violence and social harm, there’s still no guarantee Intro 501 would genuinely improve pedestrian and cyclist safety. At best, citizen reporting schemes are post-hoc solutions — by the time any fine is issued, the damage has been done. The theory is that receipt of a ticket will discourage future infractions, which may happen in some cases, but as Streetsblog has reported, a significant number of parking and moving violation summonses are never even paid.

So given all of Intro 501’s flaws, it’s worth asking why the City Council would create a new citizen-led surveillance program rather than roll out proven design solutions that would proactively limit dangerous interactions between cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and buses?

It’s because real solutions are hard.

Intro 501 and similar proposals represent a cynical approach to city governance. Taking direct action to mute the steady drumbeat of road violence might require capital expenditure, angering some voter bloc, or stepping on the toes of an agency under mayoral control. It’s simply easier for Restler and the bill’s co-sponsors to pit their constituents against one another and hope for the best. But by devolving responsibility for street safety to cyclists and pedestrians, Restler abdicates the role of government and places the burden — and by extension, the blame — back on the victims.

Restler’s bill is even more cynical than it appears because the proscribed violations, like blocking a sidewalk or a bus lane, are already prohibited by city law. But the NYPD, tasked with traffic enforcement, has made a point of shirking its traffic-safety duties. Don’t ask Intro 501’s backers to do anything about the NYPD’s disinterest in Vision Zero, though: it’s telling that Restler and the majority of Intro 501’s co-sponsors voted in support of the 2023 budget that increased the NYPD budget at the expense of public education and other vital city functions.

Our cities face real challenges, from pedestrian safety to housing shortages and decarbonization. We’re going to need to work together to solve these problems — we can’t tattletale our way out of them. And we’re going to need leaders willing to leverage the power of the state to do what’s right, even when it’s difficult. Those who would undermine social cohesion in order to seek small gains should think hard about whether government is the right place for them.

As one idling law participant user told CNBC, “You have to go out expecting there’s going to be a confrontation.”

That’s not the kind of city we should be striving for. 

MJ Barnett is an avid cyclist and attorney in Brooklyn. You can follow him on Twitter @mj__barnett.

Update: An earlier version of this story had an assertion about violence that was taken out of context and was removed.

U.S. streets are transforming into testing grounds for automated vehicle technology — but both Congress and state governments are failing to protect road users who didn’t sign up to be guinea pigs, a new report says.

In its signature annual roadway safety scorecard, the nonprofit Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety graded all 50 states on the strength of their traffic laws — and for the first time, warned that no U.S. community has taken sufficiently aggressive action to manage the still-uncertain impacts of robocar technology. (An estimated 90 percent of new vehicles sold today come equipped with some form of advanced driver assistance system, like automatic emergency braking, lane-centering, or Tesla’s erroneously named Full Self Driving.)

That failure begins with the federal government, which should theoretically be responsible for setting vehicle safety standards for advanced driver assistance systems that keeps faulty tech off U.S. roads — but has so far failed to set any standards at all, or even to provide consumers with basic information about which systems are most and least effective. The Advocates point out, though, that state governments control the laws that govern motorist behavior, and as the line between a car and its driver blurs, it’s creating new opportunities for those governments to intervene.

The problem is, virtually no government is intervening — and people may be getting hurt as a result. The most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Administration found that advanced driver assistance systems (and its more-advanced cousin, “advanced driving systems”) were involved in more than 800 crashes and 18 fatalities between July 2021 and October 2022, though the technology’s role in those collisions is unclear, because critical data was redacted from the public.

“It is far too early to assess whether automated driving technology has the potential to reduce our nation’s mounting roadway death and injury toll,” the report authors wrote. “However, the lack of federal performance standards, strong government oversight, adequate consumer information, comprehensive data collection and effective industry accountability could very well sink this possibility.”

Study: Drivers More Reckless When Their Cars Have More ‘Safe’ AV Tech

Perhaps the simplest thing state governments can do to make roads safer from the unintended effects of robocars is to remember that they’re still ultimately being operated by human drivers. Experts have long warned that the presence of an advanced driver assistance system can actually encourage motorists to check out behind the wheel, but the Advocates’ report points out that a staggering 40 percent of U.S. states have failed to institute model distracted driving laws to hold them accountable when they do.

“We’re not just concerned about traditional distracted driving, like texting; we’re also concerned about automation complacency,” said Cathy Chase, president of the group. “Even if there are warnings in an owner’s manual, it’s human nature; if people think the system is taking care of common driving tasks for them, they’ll look for something else to do. They’ll say, ‘of course I can send that quick text; of course I can watch this TikTok.'”

Even if a human driver is behaving perfectly, though, that doesn’t mean her semi-autonomous car is — and that’s the feds’ fault. Chase points out states can’t require AVs to pass a basic DMV “vision test” like flesh-and-blood motorists, nor can they require automakers to have procedures in place for when an ADS vehicle is involved in a crash, the way a human driver might learn in driver’s ed.

Those are just two examples of the dozens of basic tenets that the Advocates hope NHTSA will adopt in any upcoming rule-making, which Congress is anticipated to ask the agency to do next year. Chase emphasizes, though, that regulators may need to expand their scope as AV tech evolves.

“We have concerns about this technology now — not even considering how complex it might someday become,” Chase adds.

Fed. AV Crash Report Underscores How Little We Know About Robocar Safety

The complexity of today’s technology, though, is still a bit of a question mark for most U.S. road users— and Chase says that state and federal governments could be doing more to keep them informed, particularly so they can pressure automakers to do better.

NHTSA’s standing general order on crashes involving automated vehicle tech is still relatively new, and large segments of those reports aren’t even visible to to the public. California, meanwhile, requires AV manufacturers to submit an annual report to the department of motor vehicles detailing how often their vehicles disengaged from ‘autonomous’ mode, which usually happens when a human driver is forced to take over in order to prevent a crash. But few other states do.

“[Automakers may face] some accountability now that we have some data, but we want more than that,” Chase said. “We want improvements to the standing general order to require more [detail,] and less redaction of confidential business information. Because right now, we don’t even know who’s making those redactions.”

• Micromobility quickly rebounded from an early-pandemic dip, with 112 million rides nationwide in 2021, according to the National Association of City Transportation Officials. And cities are now better equipped to deal with the downsides of bike-shares and e-scooters by choosing operators carefully and imposing more restrictions on where they can be parked. (Fast Company)
• The Federal Highway Administration’s Every Day Counts program is reaching beyond speeding up road projects to emphasize safety and cutting emissions across multiple modes. (City Lab)
• Like France, several U.S. big-box retailers want to use their parking lots to generate clean energy. (CNBC)
• An atheist group is complaining that Uber and Lyft allow Christian drivers to proselytize to their captive passengers. (Only Sky)
• Hyundai’s new electric vehicle plant near Savannah should have been a bipartisan feather in Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock’s cap, but as he’s locked in a close runoff with Herschel Walker, the New York Times seems somehow surprised that Republicans won’t give him any credit.
• Electric cars will never replace mass transit because, to meet climate goals in a growing state like California, people are simply going to have to drive less. (San Diego Union-Tribune)
• A long-awaited San Fernando Valley light rail project finally broke ground. (Lost Angeles Daily News)
• Denver’s transit agency reports that riders stuck around after an August fare-free experiment drew them onboard. (Denver Post)
• The Twin Cities’ Metro Transit keeps cutting and cutting and cutting. Something has to change. (MinnPost)
• Texas DOT officials continue to blame the victims for pedestrians’ deaths while paying literal lip service to bad drivers. (Next City)
• Bike lanes in Houston’s Third Ward will move forward with Mayor Sylvester Turner’s support despite the area council representative’s opposition. (Chronicle)
• Here’s one reckless driver we can all agree is actually a very good boy. (KDFW)

New York just got more room to celebrate the holidays this year — well, only on Sundays. 

For the first time ever, the city is banning cars along 11 blocks of Fifth Avenue to make room for the throngs of pedestrians and tourists that flock to gaze at the famed Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center — but only on three Sundays in December. 

During the first day of a pedestrian-only Fifth Avenue between 48th and 57th streets on Sunday, thousands of pedestrians filled the fabled avenue, spilling from the sidewalks into the roadway. 

Revelers appreciated the extra room to breathe and enjoy all of the holiday displays and vendors, including performances by the Brooklyn United Drum Line, Brooklyn High School of the Arts choir, and Manhattan Samba, which kicked off the celebration after the ribbon-cutting with elected officials. 

“It sure alleviates a lot of the crowdedness on the sidewalks, which often makes this part of town unbearable this time of year,” said Nicholas Fash, who lives on the Upper East Side.

Today we joined @MeeraCJoshi, @nycgo, @MBPMarkLevine, local partners & more to to cut a ribbon celebrating the launch of holiday Open Streets in Midtown Manhattan. @NYCMayor has dramatically expanded Open Streets around Rockefeller Center ? to accommodate holiday crowds. pic.twitter.com/RI2lSDalSk

— NYC DOT (@NYC_DOT) December 4, 2022

The noon-6 p.m. Fifth Avenue open street will continue for the next two Sundays. Cars will dominate every Sunday after that, as well as every other day of the week, which is why there have been 42 reported crashes on just those 11 blocks of Fifth Avenue in one year — crashes that caused 25 injuries, including to nine cyclists and six pedestrians, according to Crash Mapper.

But the city is still mum on its plans for the long-awaited Fifth Avenue busway that the former administration watered down and then punted to Mayor Adams — so it’s especially ironic that the current mayor went ahead with the holiday plan, given that former DOT Commissioner Hank Gutman said the city couldn’t do the busway during the holidays because it didn’t want to interfere with the commercial corridor during a key buying season. 

Gutman cited a “real risk of interfering with the holiday season” — but there was no “risk” felt by those who were out on Fifth Avenue on Sunday. In fact, one father and son duo who biked to the open street from the Upper West Side said they felt even safer than they have every year prior when cars ruled the road. 

“I love it, I think it’s great the streets are closed so we can get extra close to the windows,” said Daniel, who declined to give his last name. 

His son added that he felt “100 percent” safer.

“Without the cars it’s definitely good,” said Jules.

And one Brooklynite who ventured across the East River to take in the holiday cheer said she didn’t feel as crammed as she has in the past when cars were allowed.

“It’s been really crowded on the sidewalks, it’s nice to have it open on the street,” said Tyller, who declined to give her last name. 

Streetfilms’ Clarence Eckerson Jr. was also on hand:

When Shelley Bontje took her driver’s license exam for the first time, she failed — and so did almost everyone she knows.

“My brother is really into cars, and even he didn’t get it on his first go,” she added. “If you make one major mistake, you’re done. … But I would say, in the end, that we’re really good drivers.”

That notorious test was the Dutch rijexamen, which is known for being one of the hardest in the world — though it doesn’t get much press overseas.

Even as Holland has become globally famous for its people-first infrastructure, transportation professionals like Bontje, who works at the Dutch Cycling Federation, have noticed that U.S. advocates rarely talk about the arduous process Netherlanders must undertake before they’re allowed to drive, or how education contributes to her country’s eye-popping safety stats. The per-capita road fatality rate in Holland has been roughly one-third of America’s for decades.

Bontje said that much of that success can be credited to great road design, but that the nation’s driving schools deserve some credit, too.

“How can you expect people with no education on a topic at all to behave properly?” she added.

Of course, getting a driver’s license isn’t totally impossible in Holland — indeed, 80 percent of Dutch adults will eventually get one, compared to 89 percent of Americans — and on paper, passing muster at a Dutch DMV doesn’t seem too daunting.

According to local driving schools, about 48 percent of test-takers in the Netherlands will fail either their written or on-road test in a given year, which is roughly on par with states like Arkansas (47 percent) and Oregon (46 percent). Notably, neither U.S. community nor Holland actually require would-be drivers to take a formal driver’s education course — even though Oregon officials note that 91 percent of teens involved in crashes didn’t take one.

Experts say, though, that not hitting the books is pretty rare among Dutch drivers because “without driving lessons it is virtually impossible to pass the driving test,” as the country’s Institute for Road Safety research notes. And even with an average of 42 practice hours behind the wheel and thousands of Euros worth of study sessions with a professional instructor who has to go through a rigorous certification process of her own, many still struggle to succeed.

“Most people really need to study for it,” added Bontje. “You won’t pass without studying unless you’re some kind of an Einstein-type.”

An English translation of a sample test question, via TheorieExamen.NL

The first ingredient that makes Holland’s driver’s licensing program so successful, though, is simply making young drivers wait a little while. Even the smartest baby Einstein can’t take the notorious theorie-examen, or off-road “theory” test, until she turns 16, and when she does, she’ll have to answer 65 challenging questions about virtually anything she’ll encounter on the road. (Washington state, which some studies say has the hardest test in the country, has 40 questions, while many states have just 20 or 25.)

The test begins with a timed “hazard recognition” section during which students have just eight seconds per question to assess a photo of a complex roadway environment and indicate how they’d behave in response. Nearly every image is full of easy-to-miss but critical details, like a pedestrian emerging from between two parked cars, or a soccer ball in the middle of the road, suggesting that a child might be following close behind.

That’s followed by “knowledge” and “insight” sections, which resemble the kind of multiple-choice tests with which most American license-seekers — except way harder.

Would-be drivers have to answer a randomized selection of forty questions from a pool of more than 1,500 possible prompts, including both typical prompts (“when should you use your low-beams?”) and hyper-arcane details, like the maximum length of a tow rope, or whether a Segway is classified as a motor vehicle. Test-takers might be denied a license for not knowing whether their cars’ heating or air conditioning uses more fuel, or what to do if their vehicle becomes submerged in a lake, or why the design of a sleepy rural road might induce “polderblindness,” or zoning out behind the wheel.

If they just miss three of the twelve “knowledge” questions, they’ll fail; if they miss four of the 28 “insight” questions, that’s a fail, too. Put another way: every single driver on the road in the Netherlands scored a B+ or better on her written test.

This journalist, who passed her U.S. exam with flying colors, failed three practice tests before she gave up.

Even if he conquers the dreaded written exam, though, a Dutch teenager still can’t even touch a steering wheel until he turns 16 and a half — and even then, he can only drive with a registered “coach” in the passenger’s seat. And when he finally does get to take his road test at the ripe old age of 17, our would-be driver still might fail, because many examiners have such sky-high standards.

As one ex-pat laments:

“You can fail the test for driving too slow or too fast, for being ‘not confident enough‘ or ‘overconfident‘. You simply can’t win this game. An experienced driver from the US recalls that the first time he failed for ‘being too sure of himself‘, the second time for giving a way to a mom biking with two kids, and the third time the examiner asked: ‘Why did you fail the first two times?’ before announcing that he failed again.”

And even if he doesn’t fail, our novice motorist still can’t drive unsupervised — because that privilege is only afforded to 18 year olds, an age at which most U.S. teenagers have held an unrestricted license for a full two years.

Experts, though, have long questioned the wisdom of giving driving privileges to children with still-developing brains and even less on-road experience. The Insurance Institute for Highway estimates that simply moving South Dakota’s licensing age from 14 and a half years old — the lowest in the nation — to 17, fatal crashes among teenagers would plunge by 30 percent, even if no other graduated licensing requirements were instituted.

Bontje emphasizes that Holland’s ultra-hard licensing exam isn’t the only reason why it’s such a safety standout, and that even the worst drivers are regularly stopped from causing harm by the country’s profusion of “self-enforcing” infrastructure, like protected bike lanes. Even the best streets, though, can still require a little explaining – if only to hammer home why driving safely is so important.

“Self-explanatory infrastructure is essential,” Bontje adds. “But when you’re in a car, you can always be a danger to others. That’s where education comes in.”

And when a Hollander simply can’t pass her test, it’s often not the out-and-out disaster that might be for a car-dependent American. Bontje points out that all Dutch drivers over 75 are required to be examined by doctor to assess their fitness to drive — and, sometimes, pass the arduous exam all over again — but if they don’t, they can often still live a healthy, independent life without a car, because the country’s transportation network, though still imperfect, offers them options.

“You still feel this sentimental idea of, ‘I’m losing my freedom,'” she said. “But at the other end, of course, there are way more alternatives to get around — by bike, by public transport, or walking … There are people who will never have a drivers license at all, and they’re thriving.”

It’s almost impossible in many cities to get a bike lane built or a crosswalk painted, so no wonder tactical urbanists are taking matters into their own hands. Yet cities that take years to approve safety projects take just days to remove them. (City Lab)

President Biden signed legislation forcing a labor agreement on railroad freight companies and unions, averting a strike that could have also affected passenger travel. (New York Times)

Amtrak gained 11 million riders in fiscal 2022, and if growth continues service could expand beyond pre-pandemic levels. (Washington Post)

About half of all bike-car crashes occur at intersections, underscoring the importance of measures like bike boxes. (Bicycling)

A D.C. Council bill would make Metrobus rides fare-free and expand late-night service. (Axios)

Washington, D.C. could learn something from Hoboken, which actually achieved Vision Zero, like removing on-street parking that blocks sightlines. (Greater Greater Washington)

Cincinnati passed a complete streets ordinance. (WCPO)

San Jose broke its 2020 record of 60 traffic deaths with a month left to go in the year. (Spotlight)

Traffic congestion is slowing down Seattle buses, with a third of King County Metro routes running late on weekdays and more on weekends. (The Urbanist)

The Los Angeles Times editorial board supports the L.A. Metro’s new pro-labor policies.

Apparently it’s illegal in Portland to not ride in the bike lane, even if it’s a “death trap,” as one ticketed woman put it. (Bike Portland)

Walking really does help people think. (The New Yorker)

Amtrak is still struggling to emerge from the worst of the pandemic — and nowhere is it being felt more than on its long-distance service, whose long-distance capacity remains tight even as coastal intercity routes bounce back.

And the problem isn’t just competition from airlines and their comparatively cheap fares. Two derailments in two years have left a mark on Amtrak’s reputation, railroad strikes have nearly furloughed passenger rail nationally, and border closures have severed links to three Canadian provinces, to name just a few of the agency’s news-making challenges.

All hope is not lost for America’s rails, though. Federal and state-level infrastructure investments, a breakthrough court decision, and a new generation of social media savvy rail lovers all promise to bring Amtrak’s long-distance routes onto sturdy footing in coming years — and ridership is already beginning to follow. 

Here are three core reasons why long-distance Amtrak routes are having a hard time, and some signs of hope.

An aging fleet

To understand Amtrak’s present requires a little history. When President Richard Nixon signed the legislation that created the quasi-governmental agency in 1970, the Rail Passenger Service Act, he seemingly threw a lifeline to a patchwork of private railroads whose fate had been thrown in doubt by the rise of increasingly-affordable air travel…but in reality, he hoped the whole enterprise would fail.

Nick Stockton of Wired summed it up well: 

“[Nixon’s] design approach to Amtrak was mercenary. Nixon had his ombudsman rate the different national route proposals on how likely they were to fail. Then the ombudsman ranked how likely it would be for Nixon to catch the blame for each failure scenario. Nixon didn’t seem to have any personal qualms against passenger rail (at least, Amtrak wasn’t on the enemies list), he just didn’t see it going anywhere. He apparently wanted to expedite Amtrak’s demise so it wouldn’t be a long term burden on taxpayers.”

In the decades since, though, Amtrak has defied the odds, and it even approached the cusp of profitability for the first time in its history in 2019. The fleet it’s running, though, still dates as far back as Watergate — and it’s only getting older.

Marc Magliari — Amtrak’s Senior Public Relations Manager who spoke with Streetsblog while he was aboard an Amtrak train — said that the agency is looking forward to more Siemens ALC-40 Charger series engines hitting the tracks over the coming years. It’s also ordered over 100 Charger locomotives, which began service earlier this year and are far more fuel efficient than the Genesis series.

“They’ll be new and under warranty,” Magliari noted excitedly.

An aging workforce

Amtrak, of course, is going to need a lot of workers to staff and operate all those new trains — and they might be harder to find if the national labor shortage drags on. Since the onset of the pandemic, Amtrak has shed over 1,500 employees from its 20,000+ person workforce.

Magliari explained that a significant portion of Amtrak’s workforce is retirement-eligible, or close to it, meaning the agency will have to act fast to hire and train legions of new employees. At the moment, it’s looking to hire about 4,000 or more new employees.

To help them get there, the Federal Railroad Administration awarded Amtrak $8 million to launch large-scale mechanical training programs, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has money earmarked to mend the personnel shortage. Advocates are hopeful it’ll be enough to keep the trains running.

Track ownership

Pretty much every long-distance rail passenger has at least one story about her train stopping out of the blue — sometimes for multiple hours. That inconvenience, though, often has less to do with Amtrak itself than the private freight rail companies who lease usage rights to the agency and maintain a right-of-way over passenger trains.

Magliari explains that while Amtrak’s entire network has a footprint of over 21,000 miles, the agency only owns about 620 route miles of that track, the vast majority of which is located in the Northeast Corridor. On a network where much of the railroad is single-tracked, this can mean serious delays if even a single freight train needs to pass an Amtrak vehicle.

Litigation between Amtrak and the Association of American Railroads — a trade organization representing the freight railroads from which Amtrak leases — almost made its way to the Supreme Court in 2019. Thankfully, the justices declined to reconsider the decision of a lower court that effectively allows for the passenger rail outfit to sue freight railroads for violating its right of preference.

Magliari expressed muted optimism about the decision, saying he was glad that Amtrak’s scheduling now “has teeth.” And as for whether it will impact on time performance going forward, his answer was also muted: “We’ll see.”

A New Chapter

Nixon may have thought he was euthanizing the railroads by creating Amtrak, but half a century later, it’s obvious that he underestimated the practicality and the appeal of America’s passenger trains. And today, a certain young man from Delaware who was elected to the Senate just two years after the Rail Passenger Service Act was signed into law is positioned to deliver Amtrak its biggest breakthrough to date.

In one of his most consequential accomplishments as president, Joe Biden guaranteed $66 billion in federal funding to America’s railroads via the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This money will touch just about every inch of Amtrak’s web of operations, including Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funds designated specifically for service enhancement and research to reactivate defunct and underutilized segments of the network.

The Sunset Limited route, for example, currently only runs three times per week between New Orleans and Los Angeles by way of Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, and Tucson. The Cardinal is another three train-per-week service connecting Washington, D.C. and Chicago by way of Indianapolis, Ind. and over a dozen Appalachian communities between Charlottesville, Va. and Cincinnati, Ohio. Making these routes (and others like them) weekly rather than semi-weekly would bring enormous change to the communities they serve, not to mention the nature of Amtrak’s long-distance services itself.

The road to a profitable, efficient, and relevant Amtrak may be long and bumpy. Still, all signs point toward a bright future for long-distance trains, bolstered by a young and growing fan base that Nixon never dreamed of.

John Besche is a DC-based writer who reports on religion, urbanism, the confluence of the two, and a little bit of everything in between. He holds a degree in Urban Studies from Yale University. Follow him on Twitter @JohnBesche.

• Amtrak ridership rose by 10 million for the fiscal year ending September 30, and is almost back to pre-pandemic levels. (Reuters)
• Despite the hype surround electric vehicles, plug-ins have only saved about two days’ worth of gasoline consumption over the past decade. (Jalopnik)
• Sorry, New York Times, but the death of cities has been greatly exaggerated.
• With thousands of new state and federal leaders set to take office in January, here’s how to engage them on transportation issues. (T4A)
• The acting Federal Highway Administration chief praised Colorado for redirecting federal road money to transit, bike and pedestrian projects. (Colorado Public Radio)
• Denverite profiles “sidewalk queen” Jill Locantore, who spearheaded the effort to convince Denver voters to tax property owners to fund sidewalks.
• Appointed boards accountable to no one but road builders are largely responsible for Nevada’s sprawl. (Current)
• The Buffalo News is fed up with traffic deaths.
• A new Oregon law allows cities to set their own speed limits, removing a barrier to slowing down drivers. (Oregon Public Broadcasting)
• Residents of Houston’s Third Ward say they weren’t engaged on a proposed bike lane project. (Chronicle)
• Austin officials want to keep future buildouts in mind as they consider streamlining Project Connect transit expansions in the wake of rising costs. (KXAN)
• Although street design has more to do with pedestrian deaths, Washington, D.C.-area jurisdictions are stepping up enforcement to get a handle on the crisis. (WUSA)
• With demand rising,  officials in the Columbia, South Carolina area are considering expanding Columbia’s bike-share to nearby cities. (Charleston Post and Courier)
• Eighteen Maine cities are collaborating on a Vision Zero plan. (Maine News Center)
• French President Emmanuel Macron wants to fast-track development of a regional rail system beyond Paris. (RFI)
• Windsor, Canada — right across the river from historically transit-averse Detroit — approved a record $100 million to improve transit. (Star)

This week, we’re joined once again by Stephanie Gidigbi Jenkins and Helen Chin to talk about the one-year anniversary of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. They chat about what they liked, the issue with capacity for applying for and implementing grants, transformative justice, and what states are actually doing well.

If you prefer to read, there’s a full unedited transcript here. But a nice, concise edited transcript is below the player:

Jeff Wood: It has been a year, but at the same time, because it has such a like a long runway in terms of how much funding there is and especially this bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, there’s so much stuff in it and it takes so long for it to kind of roll out. I’m curious if you’ve seen anything come out of this, if you’ve seen any positive results from this or if you haven’t seen any results from this and you’re just waiting or are you frustrated with anything that’s happened so far?

Stephanie Gidigbi Jenkins: I’m still deeply encouraged by the progress that has happened in many ways, at least at the administration level because Congress didn’t necessarily put in mechanisms, or even performance measures around, climate or equity for the infrastructure bill. What we have is an opportunity to actually build a lot of the things maybe with more of the values that we hope to see. And I think the administration has put out guidance immediately following the passage as to really centering those things that could help to transform our society for the better. We’ll see how that plays itself out depending on the final outcomes of the election.

The other piece, even with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, is we are trying to tackle multiple things in real time. The combined resources made available means that we could do it in an intentional and comprehensive way, if folks are intentional, otherwise it’s gonna be more of the same and actually create or cause even deeper harm that we’ve seen.

That’s the biggest challenge in this moment — folks not being aware of what’s happening and also the struggle of being able to really allow folks to understand the magnitude. The magnitude of this funding is what people are missing. When we were bailing out the banks in 2009 with the American Recovery Act, we were talking about $800 billion, but that’s half the money that we’re talking about for climate portion of the inflation Reduction Act. But then when we think about the stimulus funding, the recovery funding that was offered, we were talking about $1.9 trillion and then the infrastructure bill is $1.2 trillion.

So we’ve got almost four times the amount of money that we spent over a decade ago and at that time they had six years. We have four years for this to all be spent down. So both the magnitude and the time span that folks have to make some real intentional decisions is really the biggest concern for me and the importance of us being able to elevate why this matters.

Helen Chin: At the local level, folks are still trying to just navigate the Covid dollars that they got through the American Rescue Plan. Like the final tranche of those resources were allocated in mid-October and folks are still trying to figure out like what do I do with this? How do I use these dollars to address my immediate needs? And they don’t even have the bandwidth to really think about that this next wave of dollars is coming through with the BUILD money. So I think folks are in a place where you know, they’re trying to play catch up and really connect to what the opportunities are.

And I think one of the things that’s most important, especially for folks like a Communities First or other intermediaries that are trying to help navigate in this space is just trying to give people the space of abundance to sit, think, and actually develop strategy to be able to connect to these dollars in a more meaningful way. The other thing that Stephanie brings up a lot is that during the American Rescue Plan, what the administration was really intentional about is actually having a level of accountability for how those dollars were gonna be spent. So governors put forward like a plan, like you had to be intentional, like how are these dollars actually going to help those most impacted as it relates to covid?

And in that moment what you saw was I feel like a very intentional and thoughtful articulation around how we were gonna be equitable around the distribution of these dollars. And for me, I feel like that may be a gateway to thinking about then how we program for the infrastructure dollars. Because what we’re seeing is, as Stephanie mentioned, those dollars have hit the street with no guidance and we’re gonna have to be thoughtful because again this is over a trillion dollars that are gonna be spent. And the concern on one hand is that what we’re doing is just putting more money on top of what is an existing problem or existing bad infrastructure.

But if we could be thoughtful about this, it could be an opportunity to actually repair a lot of our infrastructure. It could be a way to think and transform our infrastructure so that it’s actually serving all communities. So that’s one of the things that brings me a little hope and joy at the end of the day. The proposition of that.

Stephanie Gidigbi Jenkins: The state and local recovery plans were issued by the Treasury, which actually asked the question, “How are you gonna ensure that your plans are implemented equitably?” Every state had to answer that question. And they also had to answer the question around how are you intentionally leading and supporting community engagement? And I think for me, going back through those responses on the interim reports that each state had to submit, you would be so surprised by places like Florida and Georgia and Iowa and Kansas and the ways in which governors showed up at a whole different level and being accountable to their residents and centering those who are most at need.

That’s important because 90 percent of the infrastructure bill funding is gonna be implemented at the state and local level. There’s a great opportunity for us to have a different type of conversation around centering equity and centering those who are most at need. They did it already — literally like they had to submit a report that asked the question and they all put together, everyone had to respond, two did not, but the rest of the 48 did. And it’s in the spaces and places that you would never have expected. It was the states that I didn’t expect that had some really comprehensive strategies for how they were really centering their communities.

The New York Times jumped into the ongoing conversation about why American road deaths are so rapidly outpacing the rest of the industrialized world — but the scratch-the-surface approach left a lot of causes and solutions on the table.

Journalists Emily Badger and Alicia Parlapiano’s deep dive on America’s skyrocketing traffic violence crisis centered on our nation’s 5-percent spike in car crash deaths during the Covid quarantine — a rise that came as other nations’ fatality rates plunged. (And before the trolls try to downplay the Times’s numbers, the paper was absolutely right to compare fatalities based on deaths per capita rather than deaths per mile, or per vehicle on U.S. roads.)

If sprawl forces us to drive 100% more, with crash deaths rising 50%, would you say we’re now “safer”?

If not, you now understand why deaths per capita is the crash metric that matters. https://t.co/jn4XNrWVrz

— David Zipper (@DavidZipper) November 27, 2022

And that trend long predated the pandemic — particularly among pedestrians and cyclists. People who walk and roll died 19 and 17 percent more, respectively, in 2020 than they did in 1994, while vehicle passenger deaths declined a whopping 42 percent over the same period.

We're not the only country with alcohol, smartphones or distraction. We're not the only country impacted by the worldwide pandemic. Other countries designed transportation systems where human emotion and error are less likely to produce deadly results.
https://t.co/exLdvDnf3F

— Beth Osborne (@BethOsborneT4A) November 27, 2022

The story was inspired, in part, by a Nov. 19 protest ride in memory of U.S. diplomat Sarah Langkenkamp, who was killed while riding in a painted bike lane last summer. Her husband Dan launched an awareness campaign (including two interviews with Streetsblog) to fund bike infrastructure improvements, mandate side underside guards on trucks, and other policies that might have saved Sarah’s life, if only transportation leaders had acted quickly enough.

Here are four more resources for those who want to dig a little deeper into why rising roadway deaths are such an “exceptionally American” problem — and what to do about it.

1. America’s 2020 road death numbers were an even bigger disgrace than you think

Perhaps the most buzzed-about revelation from Badger and Parlapiano’s article was just how far behind on road safety the United States has fallen during the pandemic — and how safe our peer nations were by contrast. Italy, Hungary, and Turkey, for instance, all cut road deaths by more than a quarter in 2020 when compared to the average for the three years prior, while Canada, which is as sprawling as the U.S., slashed fatalities by 6 percent.

Genuinely shocked at how society is not up in arms and appalled at the pedestrian safety crisis. It's also all over the news, so it's not for lack of information or media coverage. Deaths have increased 62% since 2009. SIXTY-TWO PERCENT.

— Tara Pham (@tarapham) November 29, 2022

Those contrasts, though, are even more dramatic than the Times’s analysis suggests. According to an earlier paper based on preliminary 2020 data, national like France and Germany experienced their lowest fatality count in more than 60 years during quarantine, while America recorded its highest fatality count in 16 years.

Put another way: as U.S. roadway deaths rose, many countries’ totals didn’t just get lower. Their roads got safer than at almost any point in history. 

The US, Where Road Violence is a National Crisis, Wants to Advise Other Countries On Road Safety

2.  There are some surprising reasons why pandemic road deaths spiked

Advocates rightly commended Badger and Parlapiano for laying the blame for America’s road death crisis squarely on the shoulders of our structurally unsafe transportation system — rather than the mistakes of individual motorists:

“We are not the only country with alcohol,” said Beth Osborne, director of the advocacy group Transportation for America. “We’re not the only country with smartphones and distraction. We were not the only country impacted by the worldwide pandemic.”

Rather, she said, other countries have designed transportation systems where human emotion and error are less likely to produce deadly results on roadways.

Some experts believe, though, that individual and cultural factors bear some responsibility for America’s recent death toll — even if structural fixes are still the best way to address those problems.

A February study of Federal Highway Administration data found, for instance, that the drivers of pick-up trucks and SUVS — aka, the most dangerous vehicles on the road, at least for those not riding inside them — actually drove more during the first year of quarantine than in the year prior, compared to the owners of small cars, who drove 16 percent fewer miles. Surveys have also found that the motorists with the most dangerous habits, like driving drunk, texting behind the wheel, or speeding, were also among the most likely to keep driving in 2020 — and that they freely admitted to doing all those deadly things even more often on pandemic-emptied roads.

Feds: Megacar Owners Actually Drove More In 2020 Than 2019

BAD TO WORSE: Study Explains Why Road Violence Increased During the Pandemic

Most experts say the solution to both problems isn’t scolding individual drivers into picking safer cars and making better choices when they drive them; it’s regulating vehicles and the roads they travel along to basically force even the most dangerous motorists to behave better.

3. Big cars and big roads aren’t the only reasons the US is so deadly

Urban Institute’s Yonah Freemark, whose research on why French and American road death trends have diverged so dramatically since the 2000s, got a lot of airtime in the article. We actually published that research back in July as part of a three-part series on what the U.S. can learn from Europe, and we couldn’t agree more with Freemark’s statement to the Times that America can no longer afford “a system that allows this incredible abuse.”

Why French and US Road Deaths Went In Dramatically Different Directions

Among the many solutions that Freemark recommended America steal, though, the Times mostly focused on just two: regulating for smaller cars and designing streets to encourage slower speeds. His other suggestions deserve their own mentions: namely, actually enforcing the speed limits on those slow streets through automated cameras, taxing the drivers of needlessly heavy vehicles when they insist on entering city centers, and creating completely car-free areas throughout those downtowns, particularly near schools.

4. Federal barriers to street safety are sky high — which is why we must dismantle them

Badger and Parlapiano rightly pointed out that the federal government is taking “modest” steps to quell the bloodshed on U.S. roads — with an emphasis on “modest.”

What the article didn’t detail, though, is how the increased funding for road safety will be dwarfed by even-more-increased funding for autocentric roads— or how GOP leaders have already told state DOTs to disregard the Federal Highway Administartion’s pleas to use those dollars for repair and safe redesigns rather than expansion, which will only drive deaths up more.

‘Very Flawed’ Infrastructure Bill Passes Senate, Imperfect Reconciliation Bill Looms

McConnell Tells States To Just Ignore Biden’s Progressive New Road Priorities

There’s a massive movement underway to reform America’s structurally unsafe transportation system at every level, including requiring state DOTs to fix deadly roads before they build new ones and making sure cities get the funding they need to prioritize the most vulnerable road users.

Every year, Streetsblog USA works tirelessly to chronicle the movement to end car dependency in American communities, and explore the tough questions about what a just transition to a better transportation system might look like. The year 2022, though, may have been one of our most impactful years yet — well, at least until 2023 rolls around.

Today, we’re launching our December donation drive and asking our readers to support our work in the new year. And whether your gift is big or small, it will send a powerful message: that every U.S. resident deserves to live in a place where they can move freely, safely, and joyfully, no matter how they get around.

We’ve done our best to carry that message forward every day of 2022, and to give you the information and inspiration you need to take action in your unique place. And this year, that mission couldn’t have been more urgent.

In 2022, we brought you hard-hitting analysis on one of the worst years for pedestrian safety in recent memory — and explained the structural reasons why so many people on foot and in wheelchairs are dying on U.S. roads. (Hint: it’s not “distracted walking.”)

Four Reasons that Pedestrian Deaths Just Hit a 40-Year High

We covered up-to-the-minute news about how policymakers and the private sector alike are working to make roads safer — or, sometimes, doing the exact opposite.

Why Tesla Can Program Its Cars to Break Road Safety Laws

As the pandemic dragged on, so did struggles at America’s mass transit agencies — but we didn’t let that critical long-term story fall out of the news cycle, especially when so many solutions to keep shared transportation strong are at our fingertips.

Four Factors Driving the Bus Operator Shortage (And What to Do About Them)

And we didn’t shy away from telling the under-the-radar stories that no one else is talking about — like 2022’s hit-and-run surge, and the complex reasons behind it….

Three Reasons So Many Drivers Leave Pedestrians and Bicyclists to Die

…or why even the most shocking car crash deaths can, and must be prevented.

Why Vision Zero Advocates Need to Talk About Anne Heche

Mostly, though, we hope you’ll remember 2022 as a year that we helped you make the case that sustainable mobility should be a human right — and not just for the privileged few.

Opinion: Slow Transportation Should Be a Human Right

It was a big year, but our work is far from done. Donate now to help keep Streetsblog strong in 2023, and help us amplify the voices of a movement that we know can change the world.

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on Greater Greater Washington and is republished with permission. Read Streetsblog’s earlier coverage about the death of Sarah Langenkamp’s and her family’s efforts to make roads safer in her memory here and here. 

With midterm elections fading from view and the season of family gatherings in full swing, the attention of millions of Americans is now turning towards home, hearth, and holiday parties.

But not for me and my sons, who cannot stop thinking about the afternoon in late August when a man driving a flatbed semi made a sudden right turn, crushing and killing my wife and their mom, Sarah Debbink Langenkamp, who was riding her bike in Bethesda, Maryland.

And it won’t be festive for the family members of more than 40,000 others who are killed on American roads, sidewalks, and bikeways this year – reflecting a 16-year high. For all of us, this season of celebration will be overshadowed by our indescribable loss.

Sarah and I, US diplomats, had only recently arrived back in the United States after being evacuated from Ukraine. Since her death, I have been trying to understand how she could have died here, near our nation’s capitol, where we had returned — ironically enough, for our safety.

Fatal flaws in the system

While some people might say her death was a rare and even freakish accident, what I have since learned is far different. Sarah actually fell victim to a worrying national trend: As cars and trucks have become bigger, faster, heavier, and safer for those inside them, they are becoming more dangerous for those outside them, particularly people walking and biking.

The statistics bear this out: Last year was the most deadly in four decades for people walking in America, and 2020 (the last year for which data is available) was the most deadly for people bicycling since 1994 (the first year for which data is available).

This worsening trend is taking place even as our peer nations make their own transportation systems safer and reduce fatalities.

The United States, for instance, stands in a dismal 47th place in terms of pedestrian fatalities in a list of 54 industrialized countries studied by the World Health Organization (WHO). Our death rate among pedestrians in car/truck crashes is more than 600 percent higher than the safest countries, like Iceland, Singapore and Norway. Our fatality rate is twice that of Canada.

As a US diplomat used to boasting about America’s can-do attitude all over the world, traffic death statistics not only hurt. They are enraging — because we know the solution to these problems.

We know bike lanes can be made safer with curbs or even plastic stanchions that separate bikers from car traffic.

We know that trucks with blind spot sensors, pedestrian/bicycle detection systems, automatic emergency braking, or underride guards (to prevent people from being crushed underneath trucks, as Sarah was) can save lives at low cost.

And we know that behind-the-wheel training for first-time drivers of Class A commercial vehicles —who aren’t currently required to have such training before they take control of these deadly machines — is so important for public safety.

Why have we not implemented these and other proven safety measures that are required in many other nations?

Riding for our lives

To be fair, there is some encouraging movement, as the Biden administration and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg created the first-ever National Roadway Safety Strategy to work toward making streets safe for everyone.

That is a good start — but not nearly enough. That is why I organized the Ride for Your Life on November 19, where riders retraced Sarah’s route on the day she died. We then joined walkers on Pennsylvania Avenue and headed to the US Capitol to hear from those of us who have lost loved ones due to unsafe traffic conditions and Congressman Jamie Raskin. It was the first event of its kind, pressing Congress to expand safety funding and asking the Department of Transportation to introduce long-overdue truck safety measures.

We weren’t alone. Our event coincided with others in more than 60 communities across the nation commemorating World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims on November 20, organized in part by Families for Safe Streets — an organization of crash victim family members. It’s a group I have, despairingly, just joined.

A reckoning for our transportation system

We have a reasonable demand: The killing must stop.

In the 1970s in Amsterdam, mothers fed up with pedestrian and cyclist deaths began the “Stop Killing Children” movement, helping create the bike-friendly country that the Netherlands is today.

While the United States may not become the Netherlands overnight, we can certainly turn around our deadly trends. Sarah, other victims, and so many families mourning this holiday season deserve at least as much.

Amtrak is still struggling to emerge from the worst of the pandemic — and nowhere is it being felt more than on its long-distance service, whose ridership numbers continues to lag even as coastal intercity routes bounce back.

And the problem isn’t just competition from airlines and their comparatively cheap fares. Two derailments in two years have left a mark on Amtrak’s reputation, railroad strikes have nearly furloughed passenger rail nationally, and border closures have severed links to three Canadian provinces, to name just a few of the agency’s news-making challenges.

All hope is not lost for America’s rails, though. Federal and state-level infrastructure investments, a breakthrough court decision, and a new generation of social media savvy rail lovers all promise to bring Amtrak’s long-distance routes onto sturdy footing in coming years.

Here are three core reasons why long-distance Amtrak routes are having a hard time — and some signs of hope.

An aging fleet

To understand Amtrak’s present requires a little history. When President Richard Nixon signed the legislation that created the quasi-governmental agency in 1970, the Rail Passenger Service Act, he seemingly threw a lifeline to a patchwork of private railroads whose fate had been thrown in doubt by the rise of increasingly-affordable air travel…but in reality, he hoped the whole enterprise would fail.

Nick Stockton of Wired summed it up well: 

“[Nixon’s] design approach to Amtrak was mercenary. Nixon had his ombudsman rate the different national route proposals on how likely they were to fail. Then the ombudsman ranked how likely it would be for Nixon to catch the blame for each failure scenario. Nixon didn’t seem to have any personal qualms against passenger rail (at least, Amtrak wasn’t on the enemies list), he just didn’t see it going anywhere. He apparently wanted to expedite Amtrak’s demise so it wouldn’t be a long term burden on taxpayers.”

In the decades since, though, Amtrak has defied the odds, and it even approached the cusp of profitability for the first time in its history in 2019. The fleet it’s running, though, still dates as far back as Watergate — and it’s only getting older.

Marc Magliari — Amtrak’s Senior Public Relations Manager who spoke with Streetsblog while he was aboard an Amtrak train — said that the agency is looking forward to more Siemens ALC-40 Charger series engines hitting the tracks over the coming years. It’s also ordered over 100 Charger locomotives, which began service earlier this year and are far more fuel efficient than the Genesis series.

“They’ll be new and under warranty,” Magliari noted excitedly.

An aging workforce

Amtrak, of course, is going to need a lot of workers to staff and operate all those new trains — and they might be harder to find if the national labor shortage drags on. Since the onset of the pandemic, Amtrak has shed over 1,500 employees from its 20,000+ person workforce.

Magliari explained that a significant portion of Amtrak’s workforce is retirement-eligible, or close to it, meaning the agency will have to act fast to hire and train legions of new employees. At the moment, it’s looking to hire about 4,000 or more new employees.

To help them get there, the Federal Railroad Administration awarded Amtrak $8 million to launch large-scale mechanical training programs, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law has money earmarked to mend the personnel shortage. Advocates are hopeful it’ll be enough to keep the trains running.

Track ownership

Pretty much every long-distance rail passenger has at least one story about her train stopping out of the blue — sometimes for multiple hours. That inconvenience, though, often has less to do with Amtrak itself than the private freight rail companies who lease usage rights to the agency and maintain a right-of-way over passenger trains.

Magliari explains that while Amtrak’s entire network has a footprint of over 21,000 miles, the agency only owns about 620 route miles of that track, the vast majority of which is located in the Northeast Corridor. On a network where much of the railroad is single-tracked, this can mean serious delays if even a single freight train needs to pass an Amtrak vehicle.

Litigation between Amtrak and the Association of American Railroads — a trade organization representing the freight railroads from which Amtrak leases — almost made its way to the Supreme Court in 2019. Thankfully, the justices declined to reconsider the decision of a lower court that effectively allows for the passenger rail outfit to sue freight railroads for violating its right of preference.

Magliari expressed muted optimism about the decision, saying he was glad that Amtrak’s scheduling now “has teeth.” And as for whether it will impact on time performance going forward, his answer was also muted: “We’ll see.”

A New Chapter

Nixon may have thought he was euthanizing the railroads by creating Amtrak, but half a century later, it’s obvious that he underestimated the practicality and the appeal of America’s passenger trains. And today, a certain young man from Delaware who was elected to the Senate just two years after the Rail Passenger Service Act was signed into law is positioned to deliver Amtrak its biggest breakthrough to date.

In one of his most consequential accomplishments as president, Joe Biden guaranteed $66 billion in federal funding to America’s railroads via the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This money will touch just about every inch of Amtrak’s web of operations, including Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funds designated specifically for service enhancement and research to reactivate defunct and underutilized segments of the network.

The Sunset Limited route, for example, currently only runs three times per week between New Orleans and Los Angeles by way of Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, and Tucson. The Cardinal is another three train-per-week service connecting Washington, D.C. and Chicago by way of Indianapolis, Ind. and over a dozen Appalachian communities between Charlottesville, Va. and Cincinnati, Ohio. Making these routes (and others like them) weekly rather than semi-weekly would bring enormous change to the communities they serve, not to mention the nature of Amtrak’s long-distance services itself.

The road to a profitable, efficient, and relevant Amtrak may be long and bumpy. Still, all signs point toward a bright future for long-distance trains, bolstered by a young and growing fan base that Nixon never dreamed of.

John Besche is a DC-based writer who reports on religion, urbanism, the confluence of the two, and a little bit of everything in between. He holds a degree in Urban Studies from Yale University. Follow him on Twitter @JohnBesche.

• States are spending less than 4 percent of their flexible highway dollars on transit. The ones that are shifting the most money from highways to transit — like Vermont and New Jersey — are seeing a big impact. (Transit Center)
• As trucks SUVs get bigger and bigger, they’re edging into bike lanes and squeezing cyclists, leaving them with just a few inches of space compared to more reasonably sized vehicles. All the more reason to build more protected bike lanes. (Bicycling)
• Putting more money into freight rail will help reduce traffic congestion and pollution. (City Lab)
• The Guardian busts myths about low-emissions zones.
• Crumbling sidewalks and unreliable transit are stopping older Americans from accessing health care. (ABC San Diego)
• The Conversation talks to UC-Davis professor Kari Watkins about the pandemic’s impact on transit and more.
• Kansas City is the largest U.S. city to make transit fare-free, but its success might not be replicable elsewhere because so few people used the transit system to begin with that it didn’t have a lot of revenue to lose. (Governing)
• Would an abandoned Queens commuter rail line be better off turned into a linear park or restored to its original use? (New York Times)
• The Oregon legislature will consider a bill next year creating a rebate program for e-bike purchases. (Bike Portland)
• Twenty years ago Baltimore built the “underpass to nowhere” a pedestrian tunnel that dead-ended due to a series of government missteps. (Brew)
• Young people can get involved with bike advocacy by organizing an after-school bike bus or painting a traffic-calming mural. (CalBikes)
• For $300,000 robots will park your car in New York City. (CNBC)
• Why are some streetlights suddenly turning purple? (Business Insider)

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on People for Bikes and is republished with permission.

On Nov. 8, voters across the country approved nearly $3.6 billion in local funding for new bicycle infrastructure, all of which were opportunities that PeopleForBikes tracked and raised awareness for through our VoteForBikes campaign. This money will go towards better on-street biking and walking infrastructure, new trail systems, park construction, and other active transportation improvements. The November election marks the culmination of our 2022 campaign, which saw a total of 42 successful pro-bike ballot measures, representing $4.2 billion in new local bicycle infrastructure funds this year alone.

A few notable measures from across the country:

• Voters in Cook County, Illinois, increased funding by $380 million for county forest preserves, which boast 150 miles of paved trails and 200 miles of unpaved trails for riding.
• In Teton County, Wyoming, voters extended a penny sales tax to approve 15 local projects, including two that will net $18 million for bikes over the next six years by creating safe routes to school, as well as fund bike/ped safety signage and other features in the town of Jackson.
• Over in Wake Forest, North Carolina, voters supported a $14.4 million bond solely dedicated to improvements on three town greenways and the construction of nearly 5 miles of additional pathways.
• In Salt Lake City, Utah, voters approved an $80 million public land bond that will provide recreational opportunities and natural area protection, with an emphasis on several bike projects and trails.
• Voters in Salem, Oregon, supported a large municipal bond to fund critical infrastructure projects, with a stated focus on multimodal needs and park improvements. At least $25 million in funding will be specifically dedicated to safer bicycle routes and crossings.
• In San Francisco, California, the combined results of Measures I and J maintained car-free space in Golden Gate Park and along JFK Drive, two of San Francisco’s significant routes dedicated to biking, walking, and active transportation.

Funding for these measures and 35-plus others embodies the groundswell in community support for safer and more accessible infrastructure. Regular people in dozens of cities and counties voted to raise or extend property, sales, and/or income taxes to fund this new local infrastructure directly or via bonds. Many measures also established community oversight boards to ensure the projects are being built as intended and with robust community input.

A big thank you to the millions of you who were part of this success — by voting, spreading the word, or simply riding in your hometown and demonstrating the importance of this infrastructure. Stay tuned in 2023 as PeopleForBikes continues to monitor local elections and build awareness around opportunities for better biking infrastructure!

• Elon Musk teased cities with promises to solve their traffic woes at no cost to them. Then his Boring Company ghosted. (Wall Street Journal)
• Cities can find out how to provide better transit by — get this — asking the people who use the service. (Route Fifty)
• Many cities are reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements, but the blight of parking oversupply is likely to linger for some time. (CNU Public Square)
• The U.S. is in the midst of a roundabout boom that’s making suburban and rural intersections — where there’s the space to build them — much safer. (Washington Post)
• New Federal Aviation Administration rules on air taxis are expected in May. (Smart Cities Dive)
• The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette gets behind reducing transit fares, reasoning that increased ridership and connecting people to jobs will boost revenue.
• Austin is set to adopt a plan on developing areas around future transit stations that won’t displace existing residents. (Monitor)
• Probably no one in Omaha has ever objected to tax dollars being spent on roads, but the World-Herald is freaking out that the city might issue bonds to fund a new streetcar line.
• Richmond’s Pulse bus rapid transit line has been a big success since opening in 2018, to the point that other cities want to copy it. (Virginia Mercury)
• A hit-and-run driver killed a beloved zookeeper in Memphis, the third most-dangerous city in the U.S. for pedestrians. (Commercial-Appeal)
• The Guardian welcomes you to the site of the World Cup finals, the Las Vegas of Qatar, which has the highest per-capita emissions rate in the world, and likely will be uninhabitable within 50 years, but is fighting climate change by air conditioning the outdoors.

The recent 10-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy brought a renewed focus on New York’s resiliency measures and readiness efforts — and promises that our government is working hard to protect our region from the threat of extreme weather. However, as Dave Colon recently pointed out in Streetsblog, we’re not ready for a Sandy sequel.

The Superstorm’s anniversary unleashed a proverbial deluge of elected officials and agency heads talking about resiliency, but despite the extreme flooding and saltwater damage to the MTA’s infrastructure – not to mention washouts, power failures and the devastating effect on millions of riders – transit was noticeably missing from much of the retrospective discussion, including in Mayor Adams’s own remarks. 

The MTA has made substantial investment in protecting against storm surge, like the one accompanied by Sandy, but subsequent storms like Ida and Henri highlighted the threats represented by other types of flooding. Clearly, fortifying the city’s waterfronts and increasing sewer capacity will benefit all of us, the transit system included. But our aging subway infrastructure is uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change — including water from above, below, and our shores — and it needs targeted, forward-thinking and adaptable solutions. Just last year, Hurricane Ida’s inland flash flooding, due to the city’s outmoded sewer system, was a painful reminder of the insufficient progress on coastal resiliency. 

This month, New Yorkers voted for a governor who says that transit and resiliency are priorities — and has made several recent resiliency funding announcements. Voters also backed a $4.2-billion environmental bond act to fund green projects around the state. Critical congestion pricing dollars will bring in much-needed capital funding to further fortify the transit system. It’s time to focus on key policies that can protect our vital transit network into an uncertain future. 

The MTA and its partners should:

• Prioritize and speed up resiliency projects in its capital -lan. The MTA has committed 80 percent of federal Sandy funding on related capital projects, and completed nearly half of them, spending $3.8 billion. But 10 years later, projects aren’t being built fast enough. There needs to be a better way to build and rebuild faster to get ahead of the next storm and myriad weather events that will affect transit and riders.
• Roll out a forward-looking climate strategy and goals. By clearly defining its strategy and integrating resiliency and sustainability goals into all its initiatives, including increasing electrification of its fleet, incorporating redundancy improvements into its projects, and ensuring riders are protected from extreme weather, the MTA will show New Yorkers they can depend first and foremost on transit. 
• Target resiliency investments to address climate impacts beyond coastal flooding. As the MTA’s resiliency team works to identify subway stations most vulnerable to inland flooding, it needs strong, active partners in city government to avoid disaster during future unpredictable storms. As Colon highlighted by giving a “D” grade to “Subway Flood Prevention,” more still needs to be done by the city. Targeted resiliency funding like that in Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Rep. Adriano Espaillat’s proposed legislation would help, but additional funding — and political will — is critical.

In many ways, the MTA is doing great work on sustainability and resiliency: Chairman Janno Lieber is right to say, “Transit is the antidote to climate change.” From starting a first- and last-mile pilot program, to developing a strategic plan to improve bike, pedestrian and micro-mobility access to MTA facilities, to bus electrification, it’s clear the agency knows that getting people out of cars and onto transit is key to reducing emissions. Its efforts show it understands that protecting transit from the ravages of nature is essential.

But most of these critical initiatives are happening as bespoke plans without overarching agency-wide guidance and separate from much of the MTA’s resiliency planning efforts. More specific public goals and benchmarks for addressing resiliency and sustainability would help advocates hold the MTA — and those leaders responsible for supporting it — accountable for creating a more sustainable, resilient, accessible transportation network. 

New Yorkers got lucky with a mild hurricane season, but the worst is yet to come as climate change becomes more devastating. The MTA and its partners are working to catch up, but we still have a long way to go before riders are fully protected from the next big storm.

Policymakers, city and state agencies, the MTA — and advocates — must urgently prioritize a regional vision for protecting our vital transit network from the climate crisis, and work hand-in-hand to ensure that riders are protected from all that Mother Nature has in store. No matter the cost, investing in resiliency today will save us billions more in the decades to come.

Kara Gurl is the research and communications associate for the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA; Bradley Brashears is the group’s former associate director.

Across the U.S., city leaders have reacted to safety concerns about the shared e-scooter industry with fleet curfews, neighborhood restrictions, and even outright bans. Those blunt policies, though, might hurt more people than they help — especially when it comes to socially and racially marginalized communities without other ways to get around.

On today’s special edition of The Brake, we’re re-broadcasting an episode of Charles T. Brown’s Arrested Mobility podcast that centered around what happened when St. Louis forced e-scooters out of its downtown (featuring an interview with our own host Kea Wilson, who covered the story for Streetsblog last year). And along the way, we’ll explore why so many places beyond Missouri’s borders have enacted similar policies — and why Black and brown Americans, in particular, deserve so much more from their transportation leaders.

Tune in below, on Apple Podcasts, or anywhere else you listen.

• Almost alone among developed nations, traffic deaths in the U.S. are rising a fact that finally caught the eye of the New York Times, even though Streetsblog has been covering it for years, and the federal government continues to do nothing.
• Cities like New York where deaths are falling are proof that Vision Zero progress is possible, writes former Streetsblog editor Angie Schmitt. (City Lab)
• The lifespan of the average e-scooter has risen from just eight months to five years. (Move Electric)
• BRT could be a stopgap or an alternative to a long-abandoned Roosevelt Boulevard subway. (WHYY)
• The Oregon DOT is planning on tolling two Portland freeways, with the revenue going toward transit and bike/pedestrian safety projects. (Oregon Public Broadcasting)
• Even with funding on hold, the Central Ohio Transit Authority is moving ahead with designing new bus rapid transit routes. (Columbus Dispatch)
• A Colorado light rail train that derailed in September was going 40 miles per hour entering a 10-mph curve. (Trains)
• Seattle is diverting funds from transit to bridge repairs. (The Urbanist)
• Big-box retailers’ massive parking lots were largely empty in Houston on Black Friday. (Chronicle)
• Fare-free transit in Tucson will end Dec. 31 unless leaders find $9 million to continue funding it. (Arizona Daily Star)
• Charlotte is piloting a new app that alerts drivers when they’re doing something dangerous or when pedestrians and cyclists are around. (Smart Cities Dive)
• London’s ultra-low-emissions zone, where cars are restricted, will be expanded to cover the entire city. (The Guardian)
• Critics crap all over bike lanes all the time, but in Toronto even supporters are doing it literally. (blog TO)

Editor’s note: A version of this article originally appeared on Strong Towns and is republished with permission.

It should not surprise anyone that parking reform is sweeping the nation. It’s not often that policymakers have an opportunity to make a simple change that simultaneously makes it easier to build abundant affordable housing, helps small businesses, encourages transit use, is rock-solid climate action, and actually saves the city money. In the last 30 days alone, four U.S. cities have seized this opportunity and repealed costly parking mandates entirely (Lexington; Culver City, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts), or in most of the city (Nashville), and a fifth (Gainesville) is almost certain to enact reform by the end of the month.

Abolishing arbitrary parking ratios only unlocks the potential for big gains in housing, transportation, climate, and local wealth generation. It’s analogous to removing weeds and rocks from a garden. The gardener still needs to plow and fertilize the field, sow, and tend the crops before they can reap the rewards.

Parking mandates are an obstacle to sustainable and equitable communities: remove them and over time a few more apartments will be built at the expense of space for a few cars. But without further effort we might see little impact — or even worse, a backlash and the return of mandatory car storage.

Analysis: The Decline and Fall of Mandatory Parking Minimums

To build the type of cities we want, to take advantage of zoning reforms that re-legalize compact, walkable, and transit-rich neighborhoods, we have to continue to pursue comprehensive parking reforms that go beyond repealing minimums and actively combat car-dependency. Fortunately, these additional reforms and strategies are also simple, impactful, and fiscally advantageous. Cities should price their curbs to manage demand and spend the revenue on infrastructure and programs that improve safe, convenient, and equitable access to our communities for people traveling by any mode, not just in their cars.

The public right-of-way, including the curb lane, is likely the most valuable asset a municipality has. For decades, the city planning department has forced builders and business owners to provide car parking, at great expense, while the transportation department offers the same amenity nearby at a price that can’t be beat: free. This means businesses can’t charge drivers for using their parking lots, but instead they must bundle the cost of parking in every transaction from a tenant’s rent to a gallon of milk. All must pay for parking whether they drive or not.

Unmanaged curbs are a liability for proponents of parking reforms. Portland, Oregon, serves as a cautionary tale. In 2012, a number of apartment buildings with no off-street car parking were built on Southeast Division Street, and the city wasn’t prepared for the fallout when neighbors realized their free and unmanaged neighborhood parking would be utilized by some of the 70 percent of apartment dwellers who still owned cars. Lacking a ready-to-go plan to implement residential parking permits or parking meters, the city buckled under the pressure of angry nearby residents and began, again, to require parking in buildings with more than 30 units. During the biggest building boom in a generation, Portland discouraged the building of more homes.

D.C. ‘Parking Cash Out’ Law Makes Employers Refund Workers Who Don’t Drive

Finding the right price for curb parking isn’t complicated. Monitor the occupancy and charge the lowest price (for meters or permits) that leaves roughly one parking space available—most of the time—on every block face. Because the pricing is sensitive to demand, nearby business owners shouldn’t worry about parking meters driving away business. While customers and residents never want to pay for parking, they’ll be paying for something of value: availability and convenience.

Proper curb management pays big dividends, figuratively and literally. Fewer cars circling for parking means fewer conflicts between drivers and people traveling on foot, scooter, wheelchair, or bike. Demand-based pricing at popular locations encourages visitors who could arrive by other means to weigh the tradeoff and consider those options. And it likewise allows cities to evaluate tradeoffs more accurately between parking and other potential uses of the space. When a city knows what drivers are willing to pay for a curbside space, they have a good benchmark for how much a business should pay to use the space for outdoor dining or shopping. When a city repurposes the space for bike lanes or bus lanes — which can bring more patrons to a business district than the parking they replace — the price of the remaining spaces responds to preserve convenience and availability. And, of course, parking meters and permits generate revenue, potentially a lot of revenue.

‘An Epic Mistake’: Donald Shoup Reflects on America’s Parking Failure

Having a good plan for spending parking revenue is just as important as having a good policy for setting the price. Cities that save up for a new parking structure are inviting more traffic and pollution into their city centers. Cities that use parking revenue for general funds create a conflict of interest — if a climate action or transportation plan calls for reducing car trips but reducing car trips means losing parking revenue from the general fund, the budget will win every time. One solution is implementing parking benefit districts where revenue is spent on public services in the meter/permit area. These districts are most impactful when the services are aligned with the bigger-picture goals of parking reform, such as creating better and more equitable transportation options. Parking revenue can be spent to repair sidewalks, install lighting and wayfinding, build crosswalks, improve bus shelters, and to subsidize transportation costs for low-income workers and residents.

The momentum around abolishing parking mandates is fantastic and every win should be celebrated, but we ignore these other reforms at our peril. We should be particularly concerned about the potential for backlash and poorly allocated revenue when parking reforms are implemented in response to new statewide laws and rulemaking, such as in California and Oregon. Traditionally, parking reform victories have come about after a long campaign of education, coalition building, and public process, but statewide preemption of parking mandates throws some communities right into the deep end. The Parking Reform Network is building a national movement to support the advocates, staff, and policymakers in these cities and to accelerate the adoption of comprehensive parking reform across the country, and beyond.