[10] Secure Adequate Funding to Fully Implement
the Plan
This strategy makes all of the other strategies happen. The Budget Chapter outlines different
scenarios from basic system preservation to full implementation, but emphasizes
the desirability of full implementation.
Securing adequate funding is clearly going to require cooperative
efforts, innovative thinking, and a lot of public support.
Expected Benefits
The full implementation budget included in this plan reflects an
aggressive, but plausible pace of implementing the nine strategies discussed
above. These desired improvements make
the region's transportation system function better, reduce user and
environmental costs, complement the community and meet the economic and travel
challenges of the 21st century.
Implications
To fully
implement New Visions, new financial
resources will need to be brought to bear - on the order of $40 million per
year -- without any commitment to major Northway and transit actions. This implication, and options on how to
address the "funding gap", is more fully discussed in the budget
chapter.
Part of this strategy leverages public
resources through partnerships with the private sector. Institutional changes often result as both
the public and private sectors adjust to new operating realities. Actions to build public/private
relationships become more urgent and necessary as government shrinks. Mutually beneficial arrangements -- win/win
situations, if you will -- can often be worked out.
Actions
38) Build a coalition to lobby for regional transportation projects.
Because the Capital District has four central cities instead of a single
central city, a unified lobbying position is necessary to be competitive in
securing local, state and federal legislative support for regional
transportation projects. The importance
of regional transportation projects recommended in New Visions will be promoted by building upon efforts by the Center
for Economic Growth to create a local legislative coalition. This coalition can generate political
support for projects that would benefit the Capital District.
CDTC and its members must also communicate
regularly with the region's representatives to Congress and USDOT regarding the
federal role in Capital District system preservation and improvement. The proper functioning of the Capital
District's transportation system is important to both state and national goals
of a strong economy, public safety, access to jobs, housing, and social and
recreational activities. A strengthened
commitment to financial partnerships from the federal government as well as the
state is paramount to achieving the goals set for the New Visions plan.
Communication
has increased in recent years. New
York's Congressional delegation was quite successful in protecting the state's
and the region's interests in the passage of TEA-21 in 1998. Further, Congressional action to provide
earmarked funds for commuter rail, the Saratoga Springs Amtrak station, the
Rensselaer Rail Station and the I-90 Exit 8 Phase 2 Connector and ITS
components are remarkable -- not only for the level of financing, but also
because of their solid connection to the New Visions Plan. Continued communication will be critical in
coming years as TEA-21 comes up for reauthorization.
The REVEST
initiative was a formal approach to documenting local projects as an integrated
regional set for the purposes of establishing a regional coalition to seek
funding. This initiative has been very
successful.
Similarly,
the Champlain-Hudson International Trade Corridor coalition is a strong example
of this kind of effort. First fruits
are being reaped in the form of the federal government's elevation of the
Champlain international border crossing to its #1 infrastructure priority in
the country.
39) Explore local funding mechanisms for implementation of the plan.
If the Capital District truly desires
implementation of New Visions, local
funding will need to be brought to bear.
Working together to get the region's "fair share" of state and
federal transportation funding will not be enough. Local funds leverage other funding sources (both public and
private) and provide money for programs that truly advance the regional
interest. Implementing this action will
reduce the Capital Region's dependence on limited state and federal
transportation fund sources, making us more regionally self-sufficient.
The metropolitan planning organizations in New
York State have jointly funded a statewide financing study for 1997. CDTC will use this study to work with the
local and state officials and the local legislative delegation regarding local
funding mechanisms, particularly where enabling legislation will be required.
Transit Fares
Identifying the
appropriate role of passenger fares in the mix of transit revenues is a
challenge. Financial pressures argue
for steady and steep fare increases in order to maintain adequate revenues for
operation. On the other hand, fare increases
are generally regressive in nature (hitting lower income individuals to a
greater degree than higher income individuals) and drive away customers --
thereby reducing the overall value to society of the transit service.
Traditionally, most innovative fare policies have sought ways of reducing the out-of-pocket cost of
transit travel. Fare policy can be used to complement
programs that encourage transit, carpooling, walking and bike trips to downtown
work locations. For example, in the
early 1980's CDTA enjoyed success with a downtown Albany free fare
demonstration program that allowed free travel midday within a broad downtown
zone. Other fare policies described
above (such as the Ecopass program) are designed to reduce fares.
CDTC's
examination of fixed guideway and bus options included an exercise to test an
alternative approach: income-sensitive fares.
In such a fare program, fares for lower income individuals would be
lowered while fares for higher income individuals would be increased. The purpose of the program would be to
obtain adequate operating revenues while maintaining a concern for "social
equity." Demand estimates indicate
that such a program would likely be counter-productive to the transit system's
ridership and revenue objectives. Few
additional lower income riders would be attracted by lower fares because they
are often "captive" riders already.
Many existing higher income individuals would be driven away from the
system because they have the choice of driving if transit appears too costly.
The implication of the exercise is that any fare policy that appears to
"choice" riders as a significant fare hike will be
counter-productive. Significantly
higher fares can be pursued without losing the "choice" rider market only
for premium service that compares favorably to the auto in terms of comfort,
convenience and travel time. This
finding reinforces the need for adequate non-user financing of transit services
-- users receive only part of the system's benefit and would be unwilling to
support a significantly-increased part of its cost.
Therefore, a joint effort to define an effective fare policy is
recommended. CDTC and CDTA should work
with NYSDOT and private transit providers to articulate the appropriate role
for passenger fares in the mix of transit revenues and engage in a dialogue
with federal, state and local legislative bodies on the issue. Further, any initiative on demand
management, parking management, congestion pricing, park-and-ride development
or restructuring of transit service must recognize the significant effect that
fare policy has on ridership success.
These initiatives must seek ways to contain or reduce fares to maximize
the potential for success.
Conversely, CDTA and other transit providers should refrain from
developing any serious service expansion or entry into new markets if fiscal
reality requires a significant fare increase.
Outside of established markets, it is unlikely that customers will
perceive sufficient personal benefit of new transit services to tolerate fares
that are perceived as high.
Other Locally Generated Fund Sources
Certain local fund sources, particularly for local road and bridge
maintenance operations, are assumed in the New
Visions budgets. These represent a
base line for preserving the function of the existing transportation
system. New transportation initiatives
in this region will require exploration of additional locally generated
revenues.
Nationwide, it is typical for major local transportation initiatives to
include partial or primary financing through dedicating a portion of a
broad-based tax, such as the sales tax.
Few metropolitan areas in the nation undertake a major highway upgrade
or fixed guideway 
system
without new local funding. Generally
these actions are offered to the public on a referendum basis and often are
part of a broad package of both highway and transit initiatives. In California, the metropolitan TIPs include
projects funded through a local option supplemental sales tax. Boulder, Colorado's initiatives are funded
with a ¼ cent dedicated local sales tax.
The entire budget requirement for full implementation of the plan of
$40M (not including any major Northway or transit projects) is approximately
equal to a half-cent region-wide sales tax.
40) Actively pursue public/private partnerships that leverage use of public funds.
Public/private partnerships can leverage transportation funds for
economic development. Existing examples
of such partnerships include the
Industrial Access Program, the Capital Region rail clearance project, the new
cargo facilities at the Albany International Airport, and the "Capitalize
Albany" campaign. Future
opportunities include partnerships with privately owned transportation firms to
carry out the Rensselaer Amtrak station upgrades, Glenridge Road improvements
and other projects. Maintaining
recreational options should the Old Albany Main be sold to another private rail
operator; maintaining Upstate transit service; and keeping commuter rail
options open are additional examples.
Extending the ITS project to explore access to currently-proprietary
information regarding traffic speeds and flows collected by shipping firms and
others is another partnership opportunity.
Contractors
Partnering between governments and highway contractors is important to
pursue. With this type of partnering,
varying degrees of decision-making authority are granted to contractors,
usually with financial consequences linked to the results of those
decisions. Frequently partnering allows
governments to buy better infrastructure repairs for less money. Two common components of partnering with
contractors are:
·
Specifying Performance Standards: Standard government bid documents specify
pavement thickness, materials to be used, and other construction details. Alternatively, the European approach
specifies performance -- quality and life expectancy -- and allows contractors
to use innovative technology while requiring them to guarantee results.
·
Incentives for Project Acceleration: Penalties are often used to keep contract work
timely. A useful complement is the
provision of financial incentives to contractors for project acceleration to
minimize the amount of travel disruption caused by a project.
Partnering is gaining acceptance in the Capital
Region. NYSDOT Region 1, for example,
used a partnership approach to several recent reconstruction projects -- most
notably the Patroon Island Bridge reconstruction during 1993 and 1994. Contracts specified the results required --
without dictating the process. This
provided the contractor with greater flexibility to adhere to schedules and
budgets, while providing NYSDOT with a satisfactory product. Both parties benefited. Another recent local example of successful
implementation of a partnership approach is the New York State Thruway
Authority's rest stop renovation program.
A joint venture between the private sector and the Thruway has led to
system-wide rest stop reconstruction and renovation program that addressed the
Thruway's requirements for traffic flow and safety and the plaza operators'
commercial goals. The traveling public
benefited.
Transit Service Delivery
Combining
public control with private operation of public services is
an increasing phenomenon in Europe and North America. There are potential applications in transportation, including
transit. As CDTA reviews and redefines
its role in coming years, it is encouraged to recommit to its role in overall
transit service design, in establishing service standards, in identifying
markets and in administering public resources.
At the same time, it is encouraged to explore greater use of private
firms operating under competitive contract for delivery of service. Greater reliance on private operation may be
necessary to provide expanded services cost-effectively in a difficult market
environment.
It should be recognized that increased
private operation is not a simple answer to cost control, however. Private firms providing service under
contract should be required to meet CDTA's high standards for driver training,
safety, drug compliance, service reliability and performance. Cost savings from private operation of
service of comparable quality to CDTA-operated service may be modest rather
than dramatic.
Competitive procurement of service also highlights the need to review state rules regarding private service
delivery, formula-based operating assistance and market entry. Unfair competition may result from pitting a
publicly sponsored firm (Upstate Transit, for example) against an unsponsored
firm (Wade Tours, for example) in bidding for a part of CDTA's new or existing
service. A mixed bag of free market
transit operations, directly subsidized private commuter services, privately operated
contract services and publicly operated services presents the possibility of
inequitable treatment of private firms.
Building partnerships is an activity that extends far beyond road or rest
stop construction. The same ideas --
performance-based goals, flexibility, and continuous communication -- can be
applied throughout the transportation planning, programming, and implementation
process. Partnering helps in living
within the budget.
41) Increase the use of mitigation fees to finance transportation improvements.
Local governments
in areas where development is occurring are encouraged to assess traffic impact
in accordance with CDTC's public/private financing guidelines. This encouragement includes:
·
distribution to and
education of municipal staff and planning boards of the guidelines;
·
technical
assistance in implementation (on contract basis, as with the current
arrangement with the Town of Colonie in the Airport Area);
·
technical
assistance in the creation of assessment districts for parking or other
improvements; and
·
additional
legislation (if needed) to aid in the formation of transportation development
districts.
Traffic
impact fees on development can mitigate the negative local impacts of increased
activity, while providing a revenue source for needed transportation
improvements. Standard large-lot
residential subdivision development has documented costs associated with it,
including traffic congestion, land consumption, water pollution, air pollution,
and impacts on environmentally sensitive areas.[1] Publicly
born costs include schools, public facilities (sewer, solid waste, water) and
parks, the provision of public services, the construction and maintenance of
roads, and public administration.
"Put simply, it costs more to run school buses and emergency
vehicles, to repair roads, and to collect garbage when homes are spread out
over more miles of roads than when houses are located more closely
together."[2] These
fiscal impacts occur over the long term regardless of whether mitigation to the
initial development is collected. An
initial assessment of impact provides at least some recompense to local
governments trying to balance budgets over the long term.
42) Include demand management and transit support in developer-financed traffic mitigation programs.
Travel
demand management, including reliance upon transit use, can reduce the traffic
mitigation costs of individual developments.
Mitigation fees and other exactions and contributions from developers to
offset traffic impacts should be routinely made available not only for highway
construction activities but also for ridesharing and transit services that
serve as traffic mitigation. This is a
small but significant change from current practice. It will not only assist transit and ridesharing activities but
also is generally a less-expensive mitigation effort than contributing to the
costs of new highway capacity.
The private sector can also assist in improving the transportation system
in many ways that are not capital-intensive and do not require assessment
districts. Examples include:
·
Cooperation in the
provision of increased shuttle bus or feeder bus services through the provision
of shelters or waiting areas. The
Liberty Park bus shelter project in Schenectady, or the Lark Street awnings are
good examples of the benefits of private sector involvement in planning and
improving transit.
·
Support for
ridesharing efforts by providing designated parking for carpools in convenient
locations; and
·
Spot improvements
to the road network, such as turn lanes, connecting of parking lots to services
roads, or sharing driveways to reduce arterial conflicts, are low-cost
circulation changes that cumulatively can have a large positive impact on
arterial function.
Overall, this strategy will increase the resources available for
transportation projects. The amount of
the increase depends upon the number of localities adopting such policies,
among other factors. Even small amounts
of private investment can serve as seed money to leverage additional public
financial support.
Initial
success has been achieved, with the first payments for transit service coming
in 2000 from mitigation fees in the Albany Airport GEIS area to support CDTA
services.
43) Explore changes in funding rules to better align funding with function.
The
alternative to changing ownership is to alter funding arrangements to provide
for the necessary repair work on all facilities, regardless of ownership. This would be helped by the creation of
direct revenue streams, such as user-based
fees and tolls. Technological advances
will permit time-based (higher for congested times) and impact-based (higher
for heavy vehicles) fee structures.
Legal authority would be required to extend these structures beyond
current toll roads. These fees would
finance the system-wide provision of safe facilities in a state of good repair.
As a first step toward aligning funding with function, CDTC can ensure
that state touring routes and other facilities serving regional needs within
city limits have equitable access to federal, state and county funding. Greater use of federal-aid money for local
repair strategies would be required as part of this action.
Currently, the design of highways and bridges are determined primarily by
fund source. Federal or state funded
capital projects use higher design standards than projects funded by local
governments. However, design is more
appropriately determined by the function of the facility than by fund source. Lower-volume roads function acceptably well
at lower geometric standards, even when federal-aid money is used. Federal-aid funding for projects on
low-volume facilities would go much further if funds could be spent on
appropriate repairs. On such low volume
roads, improved pavement condition can be achieved without the geometric,
drainage, or other improvements normally associated with federal-aid
projects. This can and should be done
without compromising safety. The other
side of this approach is the need to recognize that the standards for higher volume,
higher function roads should be maintained at a higher level. Sufficient funds should be directed to that
work regardless of facility ownership.